Full text of "A view of the evidences of Christianity at the close of the pretended age of reason: in eight sermons preached before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary's, in the year MDCCCV., at the lecture founded by the Rev. John Bampton, M.A., Canon of Salisbury"

See other formats

♦ #

V:-:4 •

*•

■>

■ ^0^>gf0®99<:
©

PRINCETON. N . , J.

4”

Part of the

ADDISON ALEXANDER LIBRARY,
which was presented by
Mbssrs. R. L. a no A. Stuart.

BT 1101 . N373 1805

Nares, Edward, 1762-1841.

A view of the evidences of
Christianity at the close

(

' ■

A View of the Evidences of Chriflianity at the
Clofe of the pretended Age of Reafon :

/ La

EIGHT SERMONS

h 1

PREACHED BEFORE

THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,

AT ST. MARY’S,

IN THE YEAR MDCCCV.

y- • - * - ■' S *.* ( *

* • i X ./ .i. > X i. J X jJ* X/i. Jr

THE LECTURE

FOUNDED EY

THE REV. JOHN BAMPTON, M. A.

CANON OP SALISBURY.

BY EDWARD NARES, M. A.

RECTOR OF BIDDENDEN, KENT, AND LATE FELLOW OF
MERTON COLLEGE., OXFORD.

OXFORD.

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS FOR THE AUTHOR.

S0LD BY J. COOKE, OXFORD ; BY MESSRS. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL’S
.CHURCH YARD; LONGMAN AND CO. PATERNOSTER ROW;

J. IUTCHARD, PICCADILLY, LONDON; AND BY
J. DEIGHTON, CAMBRIDGE.

1 805 .

IMPRIMATUR,

Die 30 Aug.
1805.

WHITTINGTON LANDON,

Vice-Can. Oxon.

HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF PORTLAND,

CHANCELLOR ;

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE JOHN LORD ELDON,

HIGH STEWARD ;

THE REVEREND THE VICE-CHANCELLOR

AND

HEADS OF COLLEGES

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,

(By whole Appointment the following Sermons were preached ;)

TO THE WORSHIPFUL

THE MAYOR

AND CORPORATION OF OXFORD,

IN TOKEN OF RESPECT AND VENERATION FOR THE CHIEF MAGISTRATES
OF A CITY, WHICH HIS FATHER HAD LONG THE HONOUR OF
REPRESENTING IN PARLIAMENT,

THIS VOLUME

IS MOST RESPECTFULLY AND MOST GRATEFULLY

INSCRIBED
BY THEIR OBEDIENT
AND VERY HUMBLE SERVANT,

EDWARD NARES

c r

... .

i ' ■ ' ! ■ '•••>

• P

i \

f ■: c.

* ' t r

ry,'

■

i • ••

i . .... - .

, >

■

* ■ *■ * 1 ■ *

>1 .• . >r

'. T i i

- _ • .. v

' > :

<: . . : ' ■ , , -.t

‘.it

. • . ; '

p • ‘ ■

EXTRACT

FROM THE

LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT

I -<*» | V r • . .. ■ ? > < 4 ' ' v ' V • v. •• t.

OF THE LATE

REV. JOHN BAMPTON,

CANON OF SALISBURY.

- cc I give and bequeath my Lands and

“ Eftates to the Chancellor, Mailers, and Scholars
“ of the Univerlity of Oxford for ever, to have
u and to hold all and lingular the faid Lands or
“ Eftates upon truft, and to the intents and pur-
pofes hereinafter mentioned ; that is to fay, I
C( will and appoint that the Vice-Chancellor of
ei the Ufiiverfity of Oxford for the time being fhall
“ take and receive all the rents, illues, and pro-
“ fits thereof, and (after all taxes, reparations, and
“ neceftary deductions made) that he pay all the
<c remainder to the endowment of eight Divinity
u LeCture Sermons, to be eftablifhed for ever in
<c the faid Univerlity, and to be performed in the
“ manner following :

“ I direct and appoint, that, upon the firft
“ Tuefday in Eafter Term, a Lecturer be yearly

“ chofen

[ Vi ]

c‘ chofen by the Heads of Colleges only, and by
“ no others, in the room adjoining to the Print-
ing-Houfe, between the hours of ten in the
“ morning and two in the afternoon, to preach
“ eight Divinity Ledlure Sermons, the year fol-
“ lowing, at St. Mary’s in Oxford, between the
“ commencement of the laft month in Lent Term,
and the end of the third week in Adi Term.

“ Alfo I diredl and appoint, that the eight Di-
a vinity Ledlure Sermons fhall be preached upon
Cf either of the following Subjedls — to confirm
cc and eflablifh the Chriftian Faith, and to con-
a fute all heretics and fchifmatics — upon the di-
“ vine authority of the holy Scriptures — upon
“ the authority of the writings of the primitive
“ Fathers, as to the faith and pradlice of the pri-
mitive Church — upon the Divinity of our
Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrifi: — upon the Di-
vinity of the Holy Ghofi: — upon the Articles
of the Chriftian Faith, as comprehended in the
“ Apoftles’ and Nicene Creeds.

“ Alfo I diredl, that thirty copies of the eight
“ Divinity Ledlure Sermons fhall be always
printed, within two months after they are
“ preached, and one copy fhall be given to the
“ Chancellor of the Univerfity, and one copy to
“ the Head of every College, and one copy to the
Mayor of the city of Oxford, and one copy to
“ be put into the Bodleian Library ; and the'ex-

“ pence

C vii ]

pence of printing them fhall be paid out of the
“ revenue of the Land or Eftates given for efta-
“ blifhing the Divinity Ledture Sermons ; and
“ the Preacher fhall not be paid, nor be entitled
“ to the revenue, before they are printed.

“ Alfo I diredt and appoint, that no perfon
“ fhall be qualified to preach the Divinity Lec-
tc ture Sermons, unlefs he hath taken the Degree
“ of Mafter of Arts at leaft, in one of the two
“ Univerfities of Oxford or Cambridge; and that
« the fame perfon fhall never preach the Divi-
u nity Ledlure Sermons twice.”

CON-

T •*'- ]

■ :.s . : . . . . ' " ) . '
. •" • • v , ' •• -
- ' ' *• - , J

• ' ! ■' • ■ ; ; •

o mi

•

: a

: , >.V:M i'V -

J. ■%

: . - .

•

: : v 1 ; }

\* '

•*

■ ■»

- •

„ ^

•

• k

CONTENTS.

SERMON I.

Acts y. 38, 3Q.

And now I fay unto you , Refrain from tliefe
men, and let them alone : For if this coun -
fel or this work he of man, it will come to
nought :

But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.

P. 1.

SERMON II.

Acts y. 38, 3g.

And now I fay unto you, Refrain from thefe
men, and let them alone : For if this coun -
fel or this work he of man , it will come to
nought :

But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.

P. 57 .

SERMON

CONTENTS,

SERMON III.

2 Esdras iv. 12.

Then /aid I unto him , It were better that we
were not at all, than that we Jhould live
JIM in wickednefs, and to Juffer, and not
to know wherefore. P. 105.

SERMON IV.

Ecclesiasticus XV. 12.

Say not thou, God hath caufed me to err ;
for he hath no need of the Jinful man .

P. 153.

SERMON V.

Jeremiah vi. 16.

Thus faith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways,
and fee, and ajk for the old paths, where
is the good way, and walk therein , and ye
Jhall find' rejl for your fouls . But they
faid, IVc will not walk therein . P. 201.

SERMON VI.

Psalm xc. 2.

• ^ 9

Before the mountains were brought forth, or
ever the earth and the world were made ;
thou art God from everlafiing, and world
without end. P. 2/5.

• SERMON

CONTENTS.

SERMON VIE
Jude, ver. lo.

t>ut thej'e /peak evil of thofe things ivhich

they know not. P. 355.

SERMON VIII.

Psalm cxlvii. IQ, 20.

He Jheweth his word unto Jacob, his ftatutes
and ordinances unto Ifrael.

He hath not dealt fo with any nation ; neither
have the hcathe7i knowledge of his laws.

P. 445.

SERMON IX.

Titus ii. 15.

Thefe things fpeak, and exhort, and rebuke
with all authority. Let no man dejpife
thee. P. 50Q.

ERRATA.

P. 62. 1. 7. for difference read indifference

— 79. 1. 8. for have a better read have had a better

— 137. 1. 1 2 from the bottom, for Viola, read Voila

— ao8. 1. laft, for not ejfential read mof ejfential

— 220. 1. 10. read The fecond and third ages are of more than two millions oj

years ;

— 374. 1. 18. for real manhood read mere manhood
• — 431. 1. 33. tor primus rt%Afuimus

Acts v. 38, 39,

And now I fay unto you. Refrain from thefe men, and let
them alone : For if this counfel or this work be of man ,
it will come to nought :

But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it .

In this advice of Gamaliel there was, no
doubt, much of prudence and good fenfe ; of
equity and common juftice it may be allowed
to have had its lhare ; of reverence towai'ds
God it was not deftitute ; but of good will
to the caufe of Chriliianity we may fcarcely
at all fufpedl it (*): and yet no friend could
have fet Chriftianity in a more advantageous
point of view, or have more properly put it
upon the true footing of its own pretenfions.
It afliimed to be “ of God (2),” and what is
more remarkable, even when every fort of
oppofition and hollility was to be appre-r
hended a, it affumed to be fo fecure, as to be
above being overthrown not only by men,
but by all the malice and ftratagems of the
powers of darknefs (3), We are able to

a How much this ftrengtheus the evidence for Chriftianity,
fee Lefies Works, voL ii. 165.

b count

SERMON I.

count the years that have elapfed fince this
cautious and wife advice was given ; and
though we may not pretend to fix the term
that Gamaliel might have in contemplation,
as to the iflue of the experiment ; yet we may,
I think, be morally certain that he had no ex¬
pectation that it would have maintained its
ground, as it now has done, for more than
eighteen centuries.

That it has continued fo long, mufi not in
itfelf be admitted as a demonftration of its
truth. It is impoflible to fay how long it
may pleafe God, for particular ends, to fuffer
error to prevail. That great and high pur-
p'ofes may be anfvvered by its exiftence, and
continuance under certain circumftances, only
the Infidel would doubt. It feems certainly
to arife out of the nature and necefiity of
things ; the freedom of the human mind and
human will depending on the pofiibility both
of error and of vice.

The mere duration therefore of any religi-
ousTyftem cannot prove it to be “ of God(4),”
unlefs it Hi all feem to have prevailed in oppo-
Jition to man. For human error may in the
courfe of-time become fo wilful and invete¬
rate, as to delay the interposition of the Al¬
mighty

SERMON I.

mighty to remove it, and to difpel the dark-
nefs of fuch infatuations. The blindnefs of
the Jews is exactly cotemporary with Chrif-
tianity itfelf. No argument is therefore even
yet to be drawn, from the mere continuance
of the Chriftian religion.

But though error may be Suffered to pre¬
vail, where men are headftrong and obftinate
in refilling the truth, and bent upon cherifh-
ing and upholding their own miftakes; yet,
that any fyllem, ajffuming to be “ of God/’
Ihould maintain itfelf again!! every fort of
oppojition on the part of man , is a cafe widely
different.

So many able, and I think unanswerable,
works have been written to prove Chriftian*
ity to be “ of God,” that the Subject feems
exhaufted ; but Hill many of thefe arguments
mull needs reft on ground difputed by the In*
fidel (5) ; on miracles which he is difpofed to
deny (6); on teftimony which he is determined
to doubt; on the fulfilment of prophecies, the
authority and application of which he is un¬
willing to admit. But another queftion may
eafily prefent itfelf to the inquifitive mind,
and my text fuggelis it, namely, what would
probably have been the fate of Chriftianity

b 2 at

SERMON I.

at this time, had it been, as Gamaliel, in all
likelihood, meant to infinuate, of man ?

There is no doubt but that every proof
which can be brought forward, to fhew it to
have been “ of God/’ rauft at the fame time
tend to prove it to have been not of man :
but there is dill this difference between the
two enquiries ; in the one we intend to de-
monftrate its inherent ftrength and validity ;
in the other, we endeavour to prove, if I may
fo fay, its ivant of iveaknefs , or the abfence
of thofe things which would prove it hu¬
man (7).

If the Revelation we adhere to be truly “of
“ God,” it is, no doubt, proper to dwell on its
high pretentions, and point out its divinity :
but it is no lefs an object worthy of our con-
fideration, to examine into the probable
chances that have occurred, of its failure,
had it been “ of man When we advance
againft the Deilt, the ftupendous miracles ac¬
companying its firft eftablifhment ; the un¬
impeachable character of the facred writers ;
the extraordinary and exa6t accomplifhment
of the prophecies foretelling the advent of
Mefliah •> it is evident that all thefe are
in themfelves fubjedts of doubt and deputa¬
tion ;

SERMON I.

Lion ; and before they can be admitted by the
Deift to prove the divinity of our holy Reli¬
gion, they mud themfelves be proved and
demonftrated to the fatisfa&ion of the unbe¬
liever. But in fhewing that had it been “ of
“ man” there is every pollible reafon to
think it muft have failed, as a mere hu¬
man invention, we lay out of the queftion
all the more immediate teftimonies of its di¬
vinity, all thofe marks and characters which
the Deift is difpofed to controvert (8), and
we reft the whole argument on luch de-
monftration as muft make an impreflion on
any ingenuous and difcerning mind.

Had then Chriftianity been “ of man” we
may naturally conclude, from what has
palled in the world fince its firft introduction,
that it would before this have failed, either
through fome inherent defeCt, or from fome
outward oppofition. I fay from what has
palled in the world lince its firft introduc¬
tion, becaufe on this will depend the whole
queftion, as fuggefted by the advice of Gama¬
liel. Had Chriftianity been no objeCt of no¬
tice, or fubjeCt of enquiry, to any but its
own difciples, it might have endured juft as
dong as it has done, whether founded in error

b 3 or

SERMON L

or in truth. It would have depended on
the temper and difpofition of thofe only who
embraced it : but records of indifputable ve¬
racity tell us that it was from the firft, and
has been even to our days, as much an ob¬
ject of attention to its opponents, as to its
friends and admirers. It has been in a ftate
of very critical trial and probation from its
very firft appearance ; it has been alfailed by
every weapon fuited to fucli an attack ; it
has been perfecuted by the violent, derided
by the Infidel, fpurned at by the wicked,
mifreprefented by the ignorant (9).

It would be endlefs and altogether ufelefs
to enumerate the different ftruggles it has had
to make, (if we may fo fpealc with due rever¬
ence,) fince its firft appearance. Any body at
all acquainted with the hiftory of the Church
will eafily call to mind what perfecutions it
has undergone, and what variety of oppofition
it has met with. It would be beyond my
purpofe to record mere fafls; it would rather
be my with to examine into the fpirit of
thefe different attacks ; to fhew how earned:-
ly every oppofing principle among mankind
has been let on work to overthrow it ; and
much furely its triumph over fuch multiplied

alfaults

SERMON I.

aflaults fhould ferve to ftrengthen our confi¬
dence in its divine authority.

Had it been “ of man” it mull be admitted
man might have overthrown it b : if man
therefore has always been in fome way or
other in oppofition to it, what power but
that of God could have upheld it ? I fhail
here however beg leave to conned Chrifti-
anity with the Revelation to the Jewifh na¬
tion, which preceded it. I fhail beg leave
to confider the Old and New Teftaments as
inseparable.

The oppofition to thefe Revelations has
been confiant lince the difobedience of our
firfl parents ; but previous to Chriftianity it
confifted much in outward ads of violence,
or idolatrous pradices, and did not appear
fo much in the fhape of objections to the re¬
vealed principles and dodrines, as in the
adoption of contrary and erroneous fyftems
of Religion.

The various oppofitions we have to exa¬
mine have both thefe characters ; having
appeared either in the fhape of contradiction
or competition ; either in the form of objec-

b “ Tout ce qu’ont fait les horames, les hommes peuvent le
u detruire.” Eoujfeau, Emile.

b 4 tions

SERMON I.

lions to the truths revealed, or as fyftems of
a rival tendency. Before Chriftianity, other
religions and other fyftems were embraced
as diftinct matters ; when they came into
competition with the true Religion, the lat¬
ter was treated with open contempt ; its
merits and foundations were fcarce at all, if
ever, canvafled ; and therefore God’s truth,
when vindication became neceflary, was to
be vindicated only by manifeft and fenfible
intei'pofition ; open and confpicuous venge¬
ance on his enemies and blalphemers (IO),
But tince Chriftianity, Revelation has not
only not been oppofed, but has fcarcely been
fo much as flighted or neglecfted, without
fome pretended excufe, infinuating either a
want of authority, or fome other great defeat
on the part of Revelation,

As the mode of attack has been altered,
fo of courfe has the mode of defence. God
no longer vifibly interpofes, but having fup-
plied Chriftians with the weapons proper
for refitting all attacks on the part of man,
he has abandoned it to our care and protec¬
tion, with a full aflurance that it fliall not
fail. While time can make no change in
the Revelation committed to our charge, it

SERMON I.

is operating every poffible change in the

conftitution of human affairs : multiplied ex-

periments and accumulated ftores of wifdom

have greatly improved the condition of the

human mind ; impofture has every day lefs

chance of making its way, while truth may

»* ^
at leaft have the advantage ot a more iatii-

fa<ftory examination.

Revelation therefore, as it becomes every
day more expofed, fhould obtain the greater
credence, if it continues proof againft fuch
aflaults : and it mu ft be remarked, that Infi-
dels themfelves give ground and fupport to
this triumph of Revelation, becaufe in re¬
jecting it as an object of fuperftition only,
and vain fancies, they pretend to have made
fuch advances in knowledge, as to fee things
more clearly, and to fathom them more
deeply, than their predeceflors. The advance¬
ment of human knowledge is affigned as the
principal reafon for rejecting fuch errors . A
hope is alfo held out to us of ftill further
improvement. But it will furely admit of a
queftion, whether fuch improvement is want¬
ing in particular points ; or whether we
have not ample reafon to be fatisfied with
what has been already difcovered ; the very
poflibility of improvement depending on a

thorough

SERMON I.

thorough apprehenfion and acknowledgment
ot fome defeat. But this may be difcufled
hereafter ; at prefent let it be fufficient to
admit to the fulleft extent the great advance¬
ment of human knowledge, as that mu ft
certainly heighten the critical fituation of the
Jewiih and Chriftian Revelations, if after all
they are but human inventions.

J •

Chriftianity was not confined to “ a cor -
“ iier ’ at its birth, nor is it difpofed to take
refuge in a corner now. It ftands expofed
to view, and to every afiault on the part of
the Infidel ; and the Infidel has indeed more
vantage ground than he had; for, if not en¬
tirely through the fuperior learning of the
prefent age, yet through the great accumu¬
lation of learning tranfmitted to us, through
ages paft, as well as through the overthrow
of almoft all pagan fuperftitions, and irra¬
tional prejudices, he has every means of de¬
tecting its weak parts, or of inventing fome
fyftem in oppofition to it c.

Whatever weapon could be raifed againft
impofition is at the Infidel’s command. There
is learning enough in the world to deteCl.
errors, and wit enough to fabricate other

c See Sherlock’s IXth Difcourfe, pp. 264, 265.

iyftems.

SERMON I.

fyftems, and better, if this be really defective.
There is, and has been ; for indeed no mode
of affault, I believe, remains untried : the
heavy artillery of learning and criticifm, as
well as the lighter weapons of wit and ridi¬
cule have been repeatedly brougnt into the
field. The effeds they have had in each
affault it is not my objed to enquire. It is
certain they have not prevailed \ Revelation
maintains its ground, not upheld by partial,
prejudiced, or interefted adherents, but readv
to anfwer to every charge of error or incon-
fiftency, and prepared to undergo any com¬
panion with rival fyftems.

Nor is this faid without reafon : for though
we would grant that Infidels have every ad-^
vantage that the accumulated learning, and
multiplied enquiries, of a long lapfe of ages
can give them, whereby they mull needs be
admirably qualified both to raife objedions,
and to drefs up any new fyftems ; yet the
benefits of fuch accumulated learning and
curious enquiries being equally open to be¬
lievers, believers are at leaft as well qualified
to judge of the objedions and fyftems of their
opponents, as fuch opponents can be to
judge of the grounds of their faith.

Nor

SERMON I.

JL Js

Nor is theology a fcience of fo confined a
nature, as that the Infidel may expe<T to at¬
tack Revelation with any weapon which the
profefi'ed Theologian is unable to wield in its
defence. Perhaps of all fciences none can
afford topics for argument againll Revela-
lation, but the following : History, Criti¬
cism, Ethics, Physics, and Metaphysics ;
and there is not one of thele, if we except
P hyjics, of which the profelfed Theologian
muft not be a competent mailer. Of Ilijio-
ry he ought to know all that can in any
way corroborate or confirm the hiftorical
records of the holy Scriptures; for a contra¬
diction in facts and events would greatly in¬
validate its authority. In Criticifm he fhould
be well Hailed : a falfe interpretation of the
original writings, in which the word of God
is conveyed down to us, being either a fnare
or a fupport to the unbeliever. Of Ethics
he ought to know much, in order to be com¬
petent to judge of the internal evidence of a
religion afluming to come from a God of in¬
finite purity and perfection. And the fame
may be faid of Metaphyjics , which mutt ferve
to throw much light on the information
there given us of fpiritual beings and fpi-

ritual

SERMON I.

ritual agency. Phyjics, though no indifpenf-
able objed of Rudy to the Theologian, muft
yet be too interefting in general to be en¬
tirely omitted: but as arguments of a peculiar
nature have been drawn from this branch of
feience, more will be to be laid upon it here¬
after. We muft however note here, that the
Infidel can make no progrefs in this fcience,
which is not attainable by the Theologian (");
and therefore, that the latter may be able to
follow him wherefoever his objections may
lead.

And perhaps in this inftance the times are
much altered- in former days, when, within
t]ie pale of the Church, controverfies were
carried on with all the parade and intricate
formalities of the moft fubtle logic, it was
the occupation of a man’s whole life, to ftudy
the ufe of thofe cumberfome weapons d: be-
tides that general knowledge at the fame time
was difregarded and even difcountenanced,
and they had other means of filencing all di-
red oppofition to the holy Scriptures than
thofe of argument and reply. But at prefent
the Infidel may be fure of being met fairly

d u In illis temporibus ingeniofa res fuit efie Chriftianum.”
Erafmus .

SERMON I.

in the field, and oppofed with whatever wea¬
pons he may choofe for conducting the at¬
tack. Believers are no longer to be defpifed
as bigots ; as prejudiced and partial advo¬
cates. There are numbers to be found ca¬
pable of coping with the molt fubtle and
the moft acute on the fide of infidelity ; ca¬
pable of examining as minutely and as large¬
ly into the merits of every point advanced
againfi: Revelation, as thofe on the other fide
can pretend to, in inveftigating the merits
of the doCtrines they oppofe.

The fupporters of Revelation defire no¬
thing more , than fair enquiry, and diffufive
argument. They with Revelation to be exa¬
mined in all its points and bearings (Ia); and
let it be confidered, that there are fome
points, in which if Revelation fhould be
found deficient, it muft be given up. If any
hittory, or hiftorical relics e, of unquejiion-
able authenticity, fhould be found to contra¬
dict its records f: if nature, or natural effeCts
and phenomena, fhould be found in pofitive
oppofition to the word of Scripture : if a

c See Minute Philofopher, p. 287. Dial, vi,

f Divine Legation of Mofes, B, iv. §. 5.

:Mfe

SERMON I.

falfe interpretation of the original writings
fhould have been impofed upon the world as
truth : if the moral precepts could be proved
to be inconfiftent with the undoubted attri¬
butes of God ; or the notions of the Deity
we find therein, abfurd and irrational ; then
I know not how Revelation could be fup-
ported. It would be impofiible not to ac¬
knowledge it to be “ of many

But if, on the contrary, it Ihould be found,
that Revelation, taking its origin from the
molt remote periods, including in it much
of hiftorical fad, fliall not, in regard to thofe
fads, have been contradided by any after-
difcovery, of more or equally authentic re¬
cords : if the wide circle of the whole globe,
not fo much as the half of which was
known, or had been traverfed, when the fa-
cred Books were written, has fupplied no
one undoubted hiftorical teftimony againft
them (I3) i if Revelation, tranfmitted to us
in a feries of compofitions of fuch a date as
to be entirely prior to all thofe obfervations
and experiments, which have laid open to
us fo many wonders in the natural world,
lhall be found to have conformed itfelf to
the true fyftem of nature, as far as common

Ian-

SERMON I,

language would allow, and in no inllance to
have fpoken in direCt contradiction to the
operations of nature : if the door has been
ftudioufly fet open by the advocates of Re¬
velation, for a dole and critical examination
of Holy Writ in its original languages, and
no falfe interpretation is infilled upon : if all
its moral precepts fhall be found not only
conformable to the purelt dictates of reafon
and confcience, but to be fo feleCt in their
nature, fo clear in their enunciation, fo prac¬
ticable in their directions, fo forcible in re¬
gard to their fanCtions, that no human wif-
dom ever attained to fuch a lyltem in any
other inftance : if its notions and reprefent-
ations of the Deity, and the world of fpirits,
the operations and nature of the human
foul, fliall be found either confonant, or far
fuperior to all that has been difcovered under
the lyltem of natural religion ; then furely
the illue of the enquiry muji be , that fuch a
fcheme of Religion, fuch a connected chain
of faCts (I4), fuch a fyltem of precepts, mull
be “ of God,” and of God only !

Now, undoubtedly, much of this has been
already amply proved and demonftrated.
The queltion however will from day to day

become

SERMON L 17

become more interefting, becaufe, as it is
the office and effecft of time in general to
overthrow all falfe opinions and unreafon-
able prejudices, fo mu ft it ferve to confirm
and eftablifh truth.

In the lapfe of ages there will be different
periods, no doubt, more friendly than others
to the developement of truth, as well as pe¬
riods more favourable to the prevalence of
error and prejudice. During fome ages, the
human mind may be fupine, indolent, and
placed in adverfe circumftances as fo its ex-
panfion and its energies. At others, more
favourable occafions will occur, in which it
fhall be in the way of every advantage con¬
ducive to the advancement of knowledge,
and the confequent difcovery of the moft
important truths. Such periods we may well
trace in the revival of learning in Europe,
and the glorious reformation of the Church.

We have recently paffed a period of no
fmall importance, though of a very queftion-
able character. It has been oftentatioufly
indeed denominated the Age of Reason. I

do not mean to allude only to the work of a
ftmple individual, diftinguifhed by this title;
but allowing him the credit of having ad-

c opted

opted a term admirably expretlive not only
of his own detigns, but ot that of many
others who have made themfelves confpi-
cuous in the period I am alluding to, I pro-
pofe to adopt it as a general title for that
mra, in which Reafon has been peculiarly op-
pofed to Revelation (,5), and, I think I may
fay, adtual experiment made of its iirength
and its effedts g.

A quefiion naturally arifes. How has Chrif-
tianity palled through this period ? Has Rea¬
fon in this conflict got the better ? Has the
recommended herfelf fo as to be henceforth
folely relied on, to the exclufion of all pre¬
tended Revelations ? Has the, in delivering
man from the mbbijh of ancient prejudices
and fuperjiitions, fet him upon a fure foot¬
ing ; fortified his foul againft every terror ;
cleared it of every doubt and perplexity ; and
given it either the enjoyment or certain hope
of eafe and happinefs ? Has the eftablithed a
clear and indijputable rule of right, whereby
a man may not only regulate his aci ions
with prudence and decorum, but become a

s See, as to the probable refult, Profeflor Brown s Appendix
to Lcland's View of Deiflical Writers } 1798.

kind

SERMON I.

•/

kind and good neighbour to all around him ?
Has Reafon, in this her firft appearance upon
earth, (for fo the affumed title would inli-
nuate,) Ihewn herfelf fuperior to thofe falfe
apparitions of her that deceived the world in
ancient times ? Has die done fo much for us
in this her own peculiar age, as to enable
us not only to difcard Revelation with con¬
tempt, but to fee the emptinefs of thofe vain
pretenders of former days, who, affirming
her name, fought to enlighten the world in
the lame bold manner, and to releafe it from
the bondage of error and darknefs ?

If fhe Ihall be found to have done this
for the world, let it he her age ! If fhe has
appeared fuperior to Chrifiianity , more di¬
vine, more encouraging, more falutary in
her doctrines and precepts, let us not live
any longer in error, let us hail her as Ihe
deferves : let us fall proftrate at her feet, as
a meffenger of better tidings than the Gofpel
of Chrift has proclaimed muft needs de¬
mand every teftimony of regard and grati¬
tude! (I6)

We have, I conceive, no need to enquire,
whether the author, from whom we more
particularly derive the title of the Age of

c 2 Reafon,

SERMON I.

Reajbn, was lincere in calling it fo, with re¬
ference to other difcoveries betides his own:
it is enough to be certain that he at leajl ap¬
prehended, from the general complexion of
things, that fuch a happy period was juft
then arrived ; and if we examine into the
circumftances of thofe particular times, we
cannot fail to be fatisfied, that a correfpon-
dent Spirit prevailed throughout the whole
continent of Europe (I7).

Reafon had at that time certainly a large
confederacy of chofen troops, all bent upon
the fame objedt, all building on the fame
hopes, all equally confident of fuccefs againft
their devoted opponents, the advocates for
Revelation, the friends of focial order and
regular government. All ancient opinions
were declared to be prejudices, and a war of
extermination denounced againft them. Rea¬
fon could expedt no period of greater ad¬
vantage for the trial of her lirength, and
advancement of her caufe. It matters little
whether the moft has been made of thefe
advantages ; it is enough to know that Jhe has
fuppofed herfelf Jlrong enough to combat an¬
cient prejudices with eff'ed ; that the has at
leaft been fenfible of her own command over

fuch

SERMON L

fuch weapons as Jlie thought to be Jufficient
for the overthrow of the ftrong holds the
meant to carry by afTault. If it fhall turn out
that fhe has ufed thefe weapons amifs, or
thought herfelf ftrong when in fad: the was
w^eak, it will not alter the cafe; we may yet
be able to judge of thofe arguments, which
have appeared to her to give her the vido«
ry(18), She muft be left to be her own
judge as to their fufEciency, when fhe claims
the victory ; it is ours to judge whether fhe
has deceived herfelf or not.

Formerly Reafon might feem to have had
a hard talk to vindicate her own fupremacy
in matters of judgment, for fhe was too
rafhly refufed all fort of interference: but
Of late fhe has been invited to interfere (I9) ;
fhe has been refpedfully appealed to ; fhe
has had every right and pretention, to which
fhe could fairly lay claim, adjudged to
her (*°.) If fhe would prefume beyond her
fair and reafonable claims, her right to judge
muft needs be queftioned and examined.
To fubmit to human reafon without juft
grounds, to appeal to her where fhe can
have no pretentions to pafs a judgment,
would neceflarity be to fubmit, and to ap~

c 3 peal.

<1 2

SERMON I.

peal, without Reafon. It would be fubmit-
ting, and appealing, and rebelling again!!
her decrees at the fame time.

And furely Reafon mujl acknowledge fame
things to be fo above comprehenlion, as to
be pal! her judgment. To make her the
foie judge in fuch matters, would therefore
be to act in contradiction to her own fenle
of right and authority. It mull always,
therefore, be the part of a wife man, to be
cautious how far he fubmits himfelf to thofe
who pretend to inilrucl him in the judg¬
ments and dccijions of human Reafon ; for
many may exceed their com million.

What human Reafon may approve , and
cijfent to, it mull always be of importance
to us to know ; but it cannot he, that no
truths can exifl independent of human Rea¬
fon. Unlefs we believe in the wild notion
of the eternity of the world, and all things
in it, we muji fuppofe, that before there was
any fuch faculty as human Reafon, many
things mull have been brought into exig¬
ence ; many things even peculiarly adapted
to the ufe of man, and which, therefore, we
might well fuppofe, if any necelfity could
exilt for the confent of human Reafon, would

SERMON I.

at leaft have been rendered plain and intelli¬
gible to the underilanding of man. But is
this fo ? Does the fun fhine by our confent,
or fpread abroad his rays in a way familiar
and evident to our apprehenfion ? Is man’s
own body exactly what he would wifh and
defire ? Would he not have contrived fo as
to have had it laft longer than it ufually
does, and free from all thofe ills and infirmi¬
ties, to which it is now liable ? Would he
not have referved to himfelf a right to in-
J'pccl thofe nice and delicate organs of life
and motion, on which his very exiftence
feems fo much to depend, infiead of /hutting
them entirely oat from his own obfervation
and management ; as is now evidently the
cafe with regard to the human frame ?

This is not faid with a view to depreciate
Reafon : it is a high and moft diftinguifhing
faculty ; hut yet it would certainly appear,
that how much foever we may be to depend
on it as" a directing faculty, it was not be¬
llowed upon us in any unlimited degree.
Man was meant to be left in ignorance (SI),
as to many points ; of which there cannot,
I think, be a llronger proof, than in the very
iniiance I have adduced, the peculiar con-

c 1 trivance

SERMON I.

trivance of the human frame ; the internal
parts efpecially ; which, till anatomical ob-
fervations had multiplied greatly, muft have
been wholly unknown to us, though all our
vital functions depended on thofe concealed
organs : and after all, we can only reafon
from analogy ; the internal conftitution of a
living being none can examine into.

Many other inftances might certainly be
brought forward, to fnew that, in certain
cafes, man’s Reafon, however it might be
left free to fpeculate upon fuch matters, was
not originally meant to be made the judge,
or even permitted to interfere. Man is fairly
Jhnt out from his own obfervations in regard
to the moft effential functions of his bodilv

frame : if he has a greater natural inlight
into his fpiritual condition, it is repugnant
to analogy ; and the hiftory of the world af¬
fords no proof of fuch a thing.

So far from man being better acquainted
'with the modes, circumftances, and condi¬
tion of his future life, he cannot know natu¬
rally whether his foul is to turvive the decay
and diffolution of his prefent bodily organs.
Can it admit of a queftion, whether Reafon
was fuperadded to the other faculties man has

SERMON I.

in common with brutes, in order to inform
him of his fuperior and peculiar deftination ?
Certainly man cannot know more of what
is to become of him hereafter, by any appli¬
cation of his Reafon, than the brute that we
fuppole will perilh, as to the actual certainty
of the matter (aa): Reafon may fupport con¬
jecture fo far as to raife in man the utmoft
expectation of a future life h, and therefore,
one would think, fhould induce him to ex¬
pert alfo, that he ihould be fuper naturally
informed of it, and fuper naturally inftruCted
in the terms and conditions leading thereto.
And this is enough for man. The mo¬
ment Reafon has carried him far enough
to induce him to conjecture that he has an
intereft in a future Rate, in a world diftindl
from this, he may naturally expeCl fome
mode of intercourfe will be kept open.

Reafon feems to be the fame in man with
that capacity of improvement pointed out by
a celebrated writer as the diftinguilhing
charaCteriftic of our clafs of being. But a ca¬
pacity of improvement in man, as man , mult

h See Butler’s Analogy, chap. i.

* Roujfeau. See his tra6l on the Origin of the Inequality of
Man.

needs

2.6

SERMON I.

needs be limited; man could never attain to
the perfections of an angel in this Rage of
his being. All beyond what his fenfes in¬
form him of, or Revelation exprefsly dif-
clofes to him, can amount to no more than
conjecture.

I would not depreciate Reafon, as the
writer juft alluded to feems to have done ; I
cannot regard it as a faculty “ only of ufe to
“ exalt the individual at the expence of the
“ fpecies I confider it as a noble , a glori¬
ous faculty ; capable of leading us to fuch a
knowledge and judgment of the things around
us, as both to amend our condition here, and
fit us to anticipate the enlargement of our
faculties in a fuperior Rate of being. No fa¬
culty could be more fuited to give us the
confoling hope of a progreffive Rate of im¬
provement hereafter, being certainly compe¬
tent to raile our notions at leafl above this
fublunary Rate, though incapable at prefen t
of actually penetrating, of itfelf, the veil that
conceals from us the regions above. Reafon
has its origin as it were in heaven, being
fitted already probably for the full fruition
of it, when fupplied with fenfes fuitable ; or

rather when fo entirely fpiritualifed as to

comprehend

S E R M O N I. 27

comprehend by intuition,

only behold, as through a glafs darUy (23).

The limits, within which human Reafon is
at prelent confined, are furely capable of be¬
ing clearly afcertained. And I lliould not be
very unwilling to allow, that fo far we might
conceive the age of Reafon to he arrived, that
indeed Reafon has now every aid at command,
that it could defire or expect. Except the
barrier obvioully interpofed between this
world and the next, it is able to cope with
almoft every difficulty in the inveftigation of
truth. I cannot conceive that much in the
line of Hijlory remains to be difcovered. I
cannot conceive that Criticifm can be carried
further than it has been. I do not think Me-
taphyfics is likely to be applied with greater
effect than it has been, to the curious, but
too often unfatisfa&ory, objedts of its en¬
quiry. Ethics can fcarce be better underltood
than they already are in theory, however in
practice men fail of acting up to the liandard
they fhould govern themfelves by. And even
in Phyfics, I apprehend, fo far from advanc¬
ing nearer to the truth of matters by further
experiments, we run a chance only of con¬
vincing ourlelves moi'e and more of our

own

SERMON I.

own ignorance, it being impoffible to know
any thing determinate of many pajl tranf-
adlions.

But if Reafon be natural, and not alto¬
gether an acquifition, as one writer of this
age of Reafon would maintaink; it yet fhould,
in the prefent Rate of the world, when it fets
up for a judge, be allifted by all the acquired
knowledge poffible. Reafon has no right to
adt peremptorily of herfelf, in oppofltion to
Revelation, without being competent to exa¬
mine and to judge of every pretention Reve¬
lation hath to urge. It is indeed difficult
now to fay how it would b epojjible for Rea¬
fon to adt of herfelf, and wholly unaffifted.
Every book that is written is the judgment
of fome man’s Reafon on fome given point :
none therefore but a perfectly illiterate per-
fon can be expedted to argue upon the mere
principle of his own unaffifted Reafon. AY hen
fuch ftores of wifdom are accumulated, as is
now the cafe, the age of Reason cannot be
an age when Reafon is to adt without regard
to thefe intelledtual treafures (*4) ; but when
Reafon fhall be fo far enlightened as to be

k Sec Houjfeau s Letter to the Archhjhop of Paris. Mifcell. vol. iii.

competent

SERMON I.

competent to judge of every thing that has
been added by man in the way of invention
or difeovery; when Reafon fhall be fo in¬
formed, as to be in many inftances incapable
of being deceived ; when it neither can be
blinded by art, nor is any longer fiienced by
perfecution ; when it is both able to judge,
and may do fo : but above all, when it
knows its own powers, and grafps at nothing
beyond its reach.

NOTES

NOTES TO SERMON I.

Page i, note (i).

“ Non certe quod Evangelio faveret, fed quod
“ homo effet moderatus.” Beza. Dr. Doddridge how¬
ever juftly obferves, Gamaliel could not be very mode¬
rate, if he was the author of the prayer again ft the
Chriftians, ufed in the Jewilh fynagogues, as is reported
of him. Gamaliel, befides all other prejudices, might,
from particular circumftances, have been influenced
again ft Chriftianity by a family pride and jealoufy : fee
Jenkins’s Reafonablenefs of Chriftianity , vol. ii. 503. The
edi& of Antoninus in favour of the Chriftians, addrefied
to the ft ate s of Afia, has much the fame fentiment, re¬
commending moderation, and calling the care and de¬
fence of idolatry on the Gods themfelves ; intimating
alfo, that the Chriftians would never be driven by force
to forfake the worlhip of the eternal God , in whom they
trufted. Vid. Juftin Martyr , Apol, ad Ant,

Page i. note (2).

Itaftfumed to be “ of God.”] That it affumed to be
from Heaven , is another thing. This is the pretence of
all religions : but of Chrijlianity it may be (aid, that it
album es to be a Revelation from that very God whom
the Deift is willing to acknowledge,, a God too pure
and too good to buffer us to be deceived in his name.
See Jenkins’s ReaJ'onablenefs , &c. part iv. chap. 2.

Page I. note (3).

cc Fundament! loco ponatur perire non poffe fundi-
« tus Ecclefiam Chriftianam, nunquam extin&am iri in
“ terris. Nunquam revivifcet et dominabitur Paganif-
“ mus aut. Judaifmus ; nunquam prsevalebit Lex Moho-
“ metis, aut alia qusecunque, per totum terrarum or-

bem,

NOTES ON SERMON I.

bem, extinElo Evangelio , et Religionis Chrijliana? fro-
feffione. Hoc certum ratumque ex verbis Chrifti. Sed
qui promifit fe confervaturum incorruptam ; incorrup-
tam dico aut doctrina aut moribus ; quinimo nos mo-
nent eadem oracula facra futurorum fcandalorum, Apo-
ftafiae futuras, Antichrifti futunA Burnet de Fide et Ojji -
ciis Chrijlianorum , c. ix.

Page 2. note (4).

The mere duration of any Jyfem cannot prove it to he
<( of G od/] See White's fecond Bampton Lefiure. ‘fRe-
ligionis autoritas non eft tempore aeftimanda, fed Nu-
(C mine, nec colere qua die, fed quid cceperis, convenit
ee intueri.” Arnobius contr . Gentes. — l t is well known
that the Pagans pleaded prefcription in favour of their
tenets again ft the Chriftians ; the Catholics againft the
firft Reformers, & c. fee Bayle fur les Comet es. Bifhop
Law, in his difcourfes on the Theory of Religion, con¬
cludes that both Popery and JMahometanifm will be found
to have accomplifhed fome wife and good ends.

Page 3. note (5).

Many of thefe arguments mujl needs ref on ground dlf-
puted by the Inf dell] “ Omittamus fane teftimonia Pro -
“ phetarumf fays La£tantius, lib. i. c. 5. u ne minus
ce idonea probatio videatur ab his, quibus omnino non
“creditor*,” and he blames Cyprian for having done
the contrary, lib. v. c. 4. Cyril of Jerufalem ( Catechef
xviii.) adviies the not arguing out of the Scriptures
againft thofe who do not acknowledge them. f‘ To7; gh
“ oiv y.lyyryo Xoyoig Ttpog r/EWy)vocy ro7; yap rd syfpatpa per}
Tfa^OL^eyogevoig, dfpa,<po~g gdyov rdig oKXoig ex Koyicrguiv govov
" xzi diroSeifc&cvv.” Mr. Gibbon wifhes the apologifts had
been difcreet enough to have a£led exactly as La&antius
profeffes to do, and as Cyril recommends in the paf-
fages cited. Not that we would grant to Mr. Gibbon,
that the evidence from prophecy ought to be kept out of
light, in arguing with Deifts and Infidels. A prophecy ,
the precife date of which is afcertainable, and the ac-
complifhment certain and circumfantial, affords an ap¬
peal applicable to every mind.

NOTES TO SERMON T.

Page 3. note (6).

On miracles which he is difpojed to deny RoulTeau
in bis Letters from the Mountains, written in defence
of his Emile , alferts, that not only miracles are no ade¬
quate proof in themfelves of a divine million, it being
impollible, from our imperfect knowledge of nature,
and from the furpriling deceptions of magic and artifice,
to know what are truly miracles ; but that our Saviour
never infijled upon his ozun miracles as any proof of his
miffion . But we may fafely allure ourfelves, that St. John
thought otherwife; fee chap. xv. 24 ; and that Grotius fo
underftood him, whofe comment upon the words E<
rd epya grj htoiryoc, is as follows; that befdes the do6lrine
which he preached, (andwhich RoulTeau wculdhavetobe
the only adequate proof of his million,) u Alter um adfert
<c argumentum, quo adverfarii reddantur inexcufabiles :
“ MiRACULA sua \” See alfo John x. 37, 38. xiv. 11.
Matth. xi. 4, 5. Luke vii. 22. and Bijhop Gibfon’s
Firjl Paftoral Letter , pp. 37, 38. Enchirid. Theolog .
The author of Chrifianity not founded on Argument af¬
ferts alfo, that our Lord could have no fuch meaning as
to convince by his miraculous works ; no fuch inten¬
tion as to prove his own truth and character by thefe
inliances of his power; in full contradiction, fays Bilhop
Law, in his Theory of Religion , to thofe many palfages,
where he exgrefsly appeals to his works , as direCt proofs
of his commillion. Dr. Morgan, in his Moral Philofo -
pher, pretended alfo that Chrill made no appeal to
his miracles. See Leland’s View of Deifical Writers,
Letter X. As to Roulfeau’s pretence, that miracles mull
be inadequate proofs, from the imperfe6lion of our
knowledge of natural caufes and elfefts, Mr. Lellie had
long ago replied to this objection in his admirable
Method with the Jews ; where he Ihews, that though
we may not always know when we are cheated, yet
we can certainly tell, in many cafes, when we are not
cheated ; as in the cafe of the three Jews call into Ne¬
buchadnezzar’s fiery furnace. For “ though we can-
“ not tell all the whole nature of fire, yet this we cer-
(( tainly mull know, that it is of the nature of fire to
“ burn/’ And this is applicable, as he further {hews,
to many, if not to all, the miracles of the Scriptures.

d RoulTeau

NOTES TO SERMON I.

Roufleau will not admit that he denies the miracles re¬
lated in the New Teftament ; but that he (hould have
been better fatisfied, if, inftead of a lame perfon being
enabled to walk, one had been made to walk that had
no legs ; or, inftead of a paralytic being made to move
his arm, a man with but one arm Ihould luddenly have
had two. But furely the miracle of the loaves and jijbes
was of this kind, and this very miracle Roufteau men¬
tions with becoming refpe£t. I fhall have more to .ay
on the fubjeft of miracles elfewhere.

Page 4. note (7).

There is alfo this difference between the two en¬
quiries: to prove Chriftianity to be “of Go d,” we mult
be in a o-reat degree confined to the iminediate teftimo-
nies cotemporary with its firft promulgation, or depend¬
ing thereon : but to prove it not to be “ of man, \ve
may refer to every thing relating thereto in the hijlory
of the world , from its firft creation to the prefent time.

Page 5. note (8).

We lav out of the queftion all thofe marls and cha¬
racters which the Deijl is difpofed to controvert.] This
is the admirable plan ol Biftiop Butler, as he explains it
himfelf. “ I have argued,” he fays, “ upon the princi-
“ pies of others, not my own 5” meaning hereby, not
the proving any thing from their principles, but notwitb-
(ianding them: “and therefore,” he adds, “I have
“ omitted what I think true, and of the utmpft import-
“ ance, becaufe by others thought unintelligible, and
“ not true.” Analogy , Part II. ch. viii. 418. and note.

Page 6. note (9).

Of the many unfair and unreafonable attacks Chrifti¬
anity has had to encounter, fee an account in Archdeacon
Paleys Principles of moral and political Pbilofophy , Book

V. chap. ix. . - ,

“ It is a convincing argument for the truth 01 tne

' “ Chriftian Religion, and that it ftands upon a moft lure

' “ balls, that none have ever yet been able to prove it

“ falfe, though there have been many men of all forts,

“ many fine wits, and men of great learning, that have

“ fpent themfelves and ranfacked the world for argu-
r 6( mcnt

NOTES TO SERMON I.

■eC ment again ft it, and this for many ages.” Prejident
Edwards' s My cell. Observations,

Lord Shaftefbury is very unwilling to admit that we
have a fair account of fome of the early opponents of
Chriftianity, Mifc. v. c. 3. See however what is faid
of Origen in Jenkm s Reafonablenefs of Chriftianity , vol.
ii. 522. and the whole of that chapter, where he
{hews that the arguments of the opponents of Chrifti-
anity were generally all anfwered before their works
were loft, it has been faid alfo, that the Chriftians
deftroyed many works of their opponents ; yet many
certainly remain, and were preferred by Chriftians , as
Maximus Tyrius , Marcus Antoninus Philofophus , Celfus,
Plotinus , Porphyry , P hilojlratus , Julian , Libanius , Hi ero¬
des^ Jamblichus , Eunapius , and Proclus. See Pry ant' s
Authenticity of the Scriptures. Porphyry’s work, it is
true, was ordered to be burnt; yet copies remained for
both Apollinaris and Jerome to examine fome time af¬
ter the edidt for its deftrudtion. If however fome works
of the opponents of Chriftianity have perifhed, fo have
fome of the apologetical writings of the Chriftians ; as
thole of Arijlides and Quadratus , Apollinaris and Melito
of Sardis, See. A great lofs the Church fuftained alfo in
the Commentaries of Hegefippus .

Eefides the attacks that have been made on it, Chrif¬
tianity has had much to encounter from the extrava¬
gant additions and incumbrances, with which it has
been loaded at different periods, and for which it has
very unjuftly been rendered refponftble. Nothing per¬
haps in modern times has been more hurtful to the
caufeof Chriftianity, than the corruptions of the Church
of Rome. Thefe have enabled Infidels to fpeak of it in
terms which were almoft juftifiable, becaufe they were
oppofing thofe , who inftjled upon it, that there could be
no Chrijlianity without all thofe abfurd and very cor¬
rupt additions which they had annexed to it. Thefe
were called Chriftianity, excluftvely almoft of the New
Teftament, and therefore no wonder they were receiv¬
ed as fuch, and treated as fuch, by the profefied enemies
of Chriftianity in general. “ I do not,” fays Dr. Beat-
tie in his Evidences of the Chrijiian Religion , (( think my-
“ felf concerned to anfwer any objection of thofe writ-
“ ers, who miftake the corruptions of Chriftianity, for

d 2 ' u Chriftianity

notes TO SERMON I.

o °

ct Chriftianity itfelF ’ in which he was certainly right*
and this would well apply to moft of the modern Deifts,
efpecially French and German , who continually confider
Popery to be the only fyftem ot Chriftianity ; or pretend
to do fo ; for that many, who have declaimed moft loudly
again ft Papal Chriftianity of late years, have known
how to diftinguilh, upon occafion, between genuine and
corrupted Chriftianity, fee Mira beau’ s Speeches , vol. n.
p. 269 — 274. and Bi/hop Horfley’s Charge to the Clergy
of Rochejler , at his fecond Vifitation, 1800. It is re¬
markable that Juftin Martyr and Origen continually
complain, in their writings, of the true Chriftians being
confounded, by their adversaries, with the le&arifts and
heretics who a (fumed the title of Chriftians. Mr. Ful¬
ler, in his Gofpel its own JVitnefs , obferves, that Mr.
Paine was obliged to have recourfe to “ corrupted
“ Chriftianity ,” to furnifh him with arguments againft
Revelation, IntroduCt . p. 8; and he admirably proves his~
point. Another evil has arifen alfo out of the corrup¬
tions of the Church of Rome, viz. that many of the re¬
plies made to Freethinkers on the continent, being by
the hands of Papifts, have rather done injury than fer-
vice to the caufe. This may be feen in the Abbe Non -
nettes Erreurs de Voltaire, in which certainly the latter is
often admirably expo fed, but at the fame time fome of
the moft exceptionable tenets of the Catholics ftrenu-
oufly defended, and l'ome very public cbara&ers grofsly
mifreprefented, as any Engliftiman would diicover, who
would take the pains to examine his account of
Henry VIII. Ann Roleyne, Cranmer, and the Queens
Mary and Elizabeth. Many of our own Proteftant
writers, on the other hand, during the latter part of the
17th century, went fo far in their writings to prove their
fecejfion from the Roman tenets, as to afford arguments for
the Freethinkers ; and the Puritans of England occa-
fioned the fame mifchief. See Chriftianity as old as the
Creation ; where every argument is fupported by paf-
fages (detached and unconnected paffages indeed !) from
fome of our ableft and heft Divines . Confult alfo the laft
chapter of JVarburton on Grace .

As it is of importance to clear our own faith
from the imputations thrown on Chriftianity in con-
fequence of the corruptions of other Churches, I fhall

add

NOTES TO SERMON I. 37

add to this long note, that moft certainly much of
what is advanced by the moft celebrated Freethink¬
ers of the continent, and of modern times, as Vol¬
taire, Roufteau, Helvetius, &c. is in no manner ap¬
plicable to our Church and our tenets. Though we
lay, there is but one true religion, we do not fay, 44 Que
44 tout homme foit oblige de la fuivre fous peine de
44 damnation. ” If this implies an acknowledgment of
all its do&rines without conviction ; we fay, whoever is
J'aved , will be faved through Jefus Chrift, be he Jew,
Turk, Infidel, or Heretic, and according to the terms
of the Gofpel in fome way or other ; which are not
therefore to be (lighted or derided, but gratefully re¬
ceived and embraced, when competently propofed : and
we affirm, that they may be competently propofed,
without putting the 44 artilan qui ne vit que de fon tra-
44 vail; le laboureur qui ne fait pas lire; la jeune fille
44 delicate et timide : l’infirme qui pent a-peine fortir
44 de fon lit,,;> to the trouble M. Roufteau ftates, of deep
ftudy, profound meditation, abftrufe difcuftion, and long
journeys. See Emile, vol.iii. Thofewho do not , or can¬
not receive the light of Chrift’s Gofpel, will always be
diftinguifhed from thole who wilfully reject it.

Page 7 . line 3 , Sec.

44 Quicquid fi£tum et commentitium, quia nulla ra-
44 tione fubmixum eft, facile diftolvitur.” LaCtantius de
Ira Dei, §. II.

44 A rigid examination is the only teft of truth. For
44 experience hath taught us, that even obftinacy and
44 error can endure the fires of perfecution. But it is
44 genuine truth, and that alone, which comes out pure
44 and unchanged from the fever er tortures of debate
Bi ‘own on the Char act erifics.

44 Error contains in it the principles of its own mor-
44 tality Godwin, Pol . Jufice, B. I. c. v.

44 II n’y a que la verite qui dure avec le temps.”
Bailly . It was a faying of Voltaire’s, 44 1 am weary
*4 of hearing people repeat, that twelve men were fuffi-
44 cient to eftablifh Chriftianity : I will prove, that one
44 man is able to overthrow it.” Vie de Voltaire par Con¬
dor cet. He forgot that, as Gamaliel fays, 44 haply h,e
fi might be found to fight againft God.” A6ts v. 39.

' D 3 Page

NOTES TO SERMON I.

Page 8. note (io.)

Open and confpicuous vengeance on bis enemies and
blafphemers: ] The true God was only regarded, as
the tutelary God of the Jews, and every opposition
to his religion therefore was dire&ly made a trial of
ftrength between the rival Deities. See 1 Sam. ch. iv.

< — io. The mi flake of Ahaz in this point, 2 Chron.
ch. xxviii. affords a curious inftance of the notions of
thofe times : Smitten by the Affyrians for his wicked-
nefs, he concluded their Gods had prevailed, and there¬
fore began to “ facrifice to the Gods of Damafcus that
“ fmote him, faying, Becaufe the Gods of the kings of
4C Syria help them , therefore will I facrifice to them,
“ that thev may help me. But they were the ruin of the
(c king , and of all IfraelP This character of thofe ear¬
ly times is not fufficiently confidered by thole who ob¬
ject to the conduct of the Jews under their Theocrati-
cal government : and as it is a favourite objection in
this age of Reafon and fentimental refinement , I {hall treat
of it at fome length. There are two modes ot‘ hating
this obje&ion : in one, the Bible is accufed as defcrib-
ing the God of the Hebrews as a fanguinary tyrant,
delighting in blood, and exercifing vengeance on his
enemies without rule or meafure. In the other, the
Bible is only charged with a grofs inconfiftency ; and it
is alleged, that however earneftly upon fome occafions
the attributes of mercy and goodnefs are afcribed to
God, the method of his dealings with the Canaanites,
and his judgments in general, as reprefented in the
Jewifh records, are in no manner reconcileable to fuch
attributes. The firft obje&ion is falfe, and not worthy
of attention : upon the latter, one quellion immediately
occurs, which perhaps fhould be previoufly anfwered,
before we can be acknowledged to be proper judges of
the cafe. If we can reconcile all that pafifes in the
world, and before our eyes, with thefe attributes of
mercy and goodnefs in the Deity, as attributes of row-
flant , unqualified , and uninterrupted energy, then we
may be adequate judges of the fubjeft in debate. If
we can prove, that it is impoffible that any human crea¬
ture fhould be fubje£fed to pain and dillrefs with the
connivance and confent of a merciful and good God,

then

notes to SERMON I.

then we muft needs have recourfe to the Mamchean
God of evil, to help us through the difficulty, not only
of interpreting the Scriptures of the Jews, but tie
common events of this vifible world.

I ffiall apply myfelf to do away this charge oiinconfft-
ency , not only becaufe it is the only charge that can with
any iufticebe alleged againft the Jewiffi Scriptures, but
becaufe it feems to admit, what ffiould be admitted,
namely, that thefe very ancient and remarkable books do
contain very juft defcriptions of God’s goodnefs, mercy,
and beneficence, if they were not blended with other
defcriptions of a contrary nature. . And it is remarka¬
ble, that many, in dating their objections to the mcon-
fiftencies in queftion, exjirefsly refer to the very paflage
I ffiould feled in proof of the confiftency of the Bible.
In the 34th chapter of Exodus we have a remarka¬
ble defcription of the Deity, in the proclamation of the
name of God, at the renewal of the tables. And the
Lord pajjed by , and proclaimed, The Lord , the Lord God,
merciful and gracious. Ion g -J'uff ering, and abmidant m

mercy and truth ; keeping mercy for thoufands, forgiving

iniquity and tranfgreffion and fin, and that will by no
means clear the guilty : vifting the iniquities of the fa¬
thers upon the children, and upon the children s children ,
unto the third and to the fourth generation . It is to be
remarked, that this is reprefented as proceeding from
God himfelf. This is a divine revelation of his own
attributes. Who could write fuch a legend as this ?
Who could put together fuch apparent contradiaions,
and expea to be believed ? Was it a fool who wrote
this? No, fays the Philofopher, not a fool, for his re of on
had difcovered to him one of the moft important faas
in the hiftory of the univerfe; namely, that God is mer¬
ciful and gracious , long -fuff ering, and abundant in mer¬
cy and truth : a faa, on which the human reafon may
fafely rely, as a fecurity againft all vain terrors, the
fears of hell, and torments of futurity. No, fays the
Socinian, not a fool, becaufe he juftly defcribes God as
too merciful, and too forgiving, to need any atone¬
ment for fin . [See Prief ley’s Appeal to the ferious and
candid Profeffors of Chriflianity .] It is remarkable, as I
faid before, that both the Philofopher and the Socinian
ffiould exprefsly refer to this paflage in proof of God’s

D 4 eYeiV

NOTES TO SERMON I.

everlafting goodnefs and mercy, and yet not notice the
inconjijlency of the paflages, otherwife , than by fairly
leaving out ( 'which they do) all the other parts of the
defcription. Shall we fay then, that he who was wife
enough to fatisfy the Deift and Socinian, as to the moft
glorious attributes of the Creator, had not wit or wif-
dom enough to fee, that vengeance could not belong to
a merciful God ? Is the text interpolated ? No. How
could it ? Would the interpolator of the fecond part
have feen no contradidlion to his interpolation in the
preceding terms ? Would he not have expunged as well
as interpolated ? Certainly , had he had but fo much dif-
cernment as a modern Socinian. Whoever therefore
wrote, or even by interpolation made this paflage to
run as it does, muft have conceived it equally poflible
for the fame God to exercife mercy , and to execute venge¬
ance ; he muft have conceived it to be no contradic¬
tion to reprefent the fame Deity as tranfcendent in kind-
nefs, yet “ extreme to mark what is done amifs.” Or,
as Ladlantius exprefsly defcribes him, “ erga pios in-
dulgentijjimus Pater , adverfus impios reftijjimus Judex”
Thofe then who admit that this paflage contains a juft,
and (as in the cafe of the Socinians) an autborifed ac¬
count of God’s attributes in one particular, may not
rejedt the other part of the account, becaufe it contra -
diets their preconceived notions of things. And as
the hiflorical accounts of God’s dealings with mankind
correfpond with this defcription, the next queftion is,
what was the wickednefs to be punifhed and corrected,
and what were the meafures purfued ? I (hall feledt the
moft prominent adt of divine vengeance, God’s deal¬
ings with the Canaanites , and other enemies of the
Jews.

It has been ufual to account for thefe meafures of feve-
rity three ways ; firft, by comparing them with natural
calamities, as earthquakes , famines , pejlilence, &c. as pro¬
ceeding from God’s appointment, though by the in-
ftrumentality of mere natural caules, and without notice
or warning ; which fhould be attended to, becaufe it is
undeniable, that it makes the cafe of the Canaanites
lefs objedtionable even, than fome events continually
palling before our eyes. But of this hereafter. Se¬
condly, fome are for referring the whole to God’s ab-

folute

NOTES TO SERMON I.

fblute decrees ; too much to the entire exclufion of all
vioral confiderations whatfoever. [See Jainiefon on the
life of Sacred Hi/lory.] And thirdly, others conceive
God’s word to have been fo pledged by the promife
made to Abraham, as to have admitted of no alterna¬
tive. But the fimpleft folution is to be found in the
Scripture itfelf, and the circum fiances of the times
when the events happened. Let us but fuppofe the
cafe, (the real cafe fully appears to have been fo,) that
except what God had been juft pleafed to reveal of
himfelf to Mofes, no nation in the whole world then
knew or acknowledged the one true God : that, through
a corruption of the religion derived by tradition from
Adam, they had been brought to put their truflm num-
berlefs tutelary Deities, to the exclufion of the very
name of God. And let us fuppofe further, that the
only people, among whom there was any chance of
God’s being juftly acknowledged and duly worfhipped,
were in a ftate of perfecution, defpifed and oppreffed.
God never a&s fo as to over-rule the human mind, but
to guide it by notices and warnings, and motives. Let
us now proceed a ftep further, and fuppofe fuch a cafe
to be in contemplation, that the knowledge of the true
God was to be revived in men’s minds, by openly con¬
vincing them of the vanity and folly of putting their
truft in idols 5 the danger of defying the God of Ifrael,
and of the manifeftand certain benefit of trufting folely
to his care and protection. The firft cafe could only
be proved by the difcomfiture of thofe who trailed in
idols : the lecond, by fome moft impreffive vindication
of the majefty and power of the true God ; and the
laft, by a conftant fupport of thofe, who were known
and acknowledged to put their truft in Him. Is not
all this peculiarly confident with the fpirit of Mofes’s
appeals to God, whenever the Ifraelites offended, that
he would not withdraw his protection from them, for
fear that thofe, who looked upon them as under the
peculiar care of God, fhould fay, “ Becaufe the Lord
(( was not able to bring this people into the land, which
« he fware unto them, therefore he hath (lain them in
“ the wildernefs.” (Numbers xiv. Deut. ix. 28.) Is
not this confident with what Jethro fays to Mofes,
after the latter had recounted to him “ all that he had

(6 don©

4'’

NOTES TO SERMON I.

“ done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Ifrael's
6C fake ?” “ Now I know that the Lord is greater than
“all Gods ; for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly
He was above them.” Exod. xviii.

But there cannot poffibly be any cafes adduced fo
ftrong as thofe recounted in the 18th chapter of the
firft book, and 19th chapter of the fecond book of
Kings ; and in the 3d chapter of the book of Da¬
niel. I never read thofe hiftories without conceiving
that I have then a full view of God’s difpenfations
in Judea, and of the neceftity arifing out of the cir-
cumftances of the times, for his efpecial interpofition.
In all the three inftances we have a mighty king
at the head of a confpiracy and confederacy againft
the living God, and whole nations concerned in the
event. In each cafe idolatry is refilled and expofed
with fuch a rational and holy confidence in the true
God ; fuch a Heady and determined reliance on his juft
vindication of his own infulted honour, as every dif-
paflionate man mull allow the occafions exprefsly called
for. In the two inftances of Ahab and Nebuchadnezzar ,
how fatisfa&ory and convincing are the conclufions of
each relation ! the ftrong emotions of the fubjedls of
the former, on the defeent of the fire from heaven, and
their fudden exclamation. The Lord he is God , the Lord
he is God. In the latter, the proclamation of Nebu¬
chadnezzar himfelf, “ Then Nebuchadnezzar fpake
(( and faid, Blefted be the God of Shadrach, Mefhech,
“ and Abednego, who hath fent his angel and deli-
vered his l'ervants that trufted in him, and hath
“ changed the King's word , and yielded their bodies
cs that they might not ferve nor worlliip any God ex-
ic cept their own God. Therefore I make a decree,
sc that every people, nation, and language, which fpeak
64 any thing amifs againft the God of Shadrach, Me-
“ fhech, and Abednego, (hall be cut in pieces, and
“ their houfes lhall be made a dunghill ; becaufe there
“ is no other God that can deliver ajter this fort.” Nor
even in the fecond inftance adduced is the cafe lefs
ftriking. How mull Sennacherib and all his people
have refiedled upon his vain boaft againft Judah, when
he enumerated, not the nations, but the Gods of the
nations, againft whom he had prevailed ! “ Have the

“ Gods

NOTES TO SERMON I.

Gods of the nations delivered thofe which my father
u dedroyed, as Gozan, and Ha?' an , and Rezeph , and the
“ children of Eden, which are in Th el afar P Where is
cc the king of Hamath, and the king of Hrpad, and the
cc king of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and IvabP ”
Thefe indeed are, all three of them, very confpicuous
indances of the defance of the God of Ifrael. But let
us remember alio, that though God was, certainly, to
theje idolaters, chiefly tc the God of Ifrael only, tnat
is, the tutelary Deity of the Jews ; yet their proceed¬
ings, and the tendency of their defance was, to reject
him alfo as the moral Governor of the world : their fa-
crifces and oblations, their trefpafs offerings , and vows,
were all devoted to their own Gods, and refembied
their grofs and impure nature. This is fo well known,
that it need not be infilled on. It was not the religion
of the world only, but the morals, that required cor¬
rection, for they were intimately connected with the
idolatry of the times. The defiance of the God of If¬
rael therefore was not leis than a defiance of God and
all his moral attributes ; and every thing connected
with morality, as well as religion, depended on the
vindication of God’s irrefiflible l'upremacy.

There could be no harm, under thefe circum fiances,
in God’s acting by the Ifraelites as though he was their
tutelary Deity, the great objedt being to detach the pro¬
fane nations' from their idols. The acknowledgment
of God in his proper charadler would have followed
upon fuch a converfion. This is only mentioned in al-
lufion to the condrudtion Lord Bolingbroke is pleafed
to put upon the covenant made with Abraham. [See
Leland’s Eiew of Heif ical Writers, vol. ii. 125. 5^
edit.] There is a paffage in the book of Wifdom, m
which the didindtion is beautifully pointed out. u Nei-
(C ther is there any God but thou, that cared for all.”
ch. xii. 13. This is fuppofed evidently to allude to the
ancient worfhip of tutelary Deities.

But here another queftion is dated. Suppofing the
interference of God to be neceflary, If God wifhes to
« punifh,” fays M. Volney, “ are not earthquakes, vol-
« canoes, and the thunderbolt in his hand ? Does a God
« of clemency know no other way of corre&ing but
*s by extermination ?” ( Revolut . des Empires , ch, xiii.)

NOTES TO SERMON I.

We anfwer, Yes; he employs perhaps earthquakes,
volcanoes, and lightning, as well as extermination, even
to this day. The queftion is, was there fpecial and ap¬
parent reafon for the very mode of correction recorded
in the Scriptures ? And to this we anfwer, Yes. We
have already fpoken of the cafe of defiance , and we will
venture to fay, that if the hiftorical parts of the Old
Teftainent are carefully examined, almoft every cafe
maybe refolvedby this tingle circumfiance; that it was
a cafe of aCtual defiance againft God, and wherein vic¬
tory and fuccefs would have led to the mod extenfive
and fatal confequences. But to return to M. Volney.
We are bound to conclude the mode of extermination
to be neceflary for fome high purpofes, if we will but
allow the Scriptures to fpeak for themfelves ; for to
fhew that God did not delight in the blood of his ene¬
mies, as fome choofe to infift, David is not even al¬
lowed to build the Temple of God, but Solomon is
preferred. And why ? Becaufe the former “ had fihed
“ blood abundantly , and made great wars ;” and the
latter was to be ce a man of refi .” i Chron. xxii. 8, 9.
And yet, that David was an infirumentin God’s hands,
in moll cafes, he himfelf infinuates, ib. xxviii. 3, 4.
M. Volney alfo betrays great ignorance by his quefiion,
as it has been mod ably (hewn, that earthquakes, fa¬
mine, peftilence, &c. were not the proper punifhments,
thefe being referred by the Pagans to the agency of
their falfe Gods : [fee Owen s Sermons , and Jenkin s
Reafonablenefs , &c.] The chara&er *of thofe ages was,
that u they deemed either fire , or wind, or the fwift
<e air, or the circle of the fiars, or the violent water,
(( or the lights of heaven, to be the Gods that govern the
“ world it was fitting they (hould be taught “ how
(C much mightier He is, who maketh them.” Wifdom
xiii. 2. 4.

Tn the defcription of the Deity, which has been the
principal fubjeCl of this long note, we find it afcribed
to the Deity, (( that he will vifit the fins of the fathers
“ upon the children, unto the third and fourth gene-
“ rations.” This happens to be a part of the Deca¬
logue, and that part which Mr. Paine, in his Age of
Reafon, choofes to afi'ert, 6i is contrary to every princi-
“ pie of moral juftice.” But I fuppofe Mr. Paine would

not

notes to SERMON I.

not deny, that in the common courfe of things children
do fuffer for the fins of their fathers, confequentially,
though not vindictively : and that this was in the view
of the divine Legiflator may be feen by comparing
Deut. xxiv. 16. and the reference made to it in the
cafe of Amaziah, 2 Kings xiv. 6. And this will be con¬
fident with Ezekiel xviii. The fon is not to fuffer for,
but often in confequence of, his father’s iniquities.
And let this be recollected, that at all events God can
forefee a time for compenfation, a time to come, when
the fon fhall no more be punifhed for the iniquity of his
father, but “ when the righteoufnefs of the Hghteous
« fhall be upon the righteous, and the wickednefs of
“ the wicked upon the wicked.” If the queftion had
related only to the policy of the cafe, we might cite
Cicero in defence of the meafure, who praifes it as a
wife proceeding. “ Parentium fcelera filiorum poems
« lui — hoc pres cl are legibus comparatum eft, ut caritas
liberorum amiciores parentes reipublicse redderet.”
Epijl . ad Brut . epift. xii. and in the xvth epift. he calls
it tf et antiquum et omnium civitatum.” Had Mr.
Paine been capable of reading Cicero, he would fcarce
have ventured to fay, that no lawgiver would have
thought of fuch an expedient ; and he might alfo have
learnt from the following references, how general the
notion was, that children were to fuffer for the fins of
their parents. Theognis 729* ^c* S°l°n 25* ^c* Oracu
lum Delph . apud Lilian, Ear. FUJI. lib. iii* 43* Plutarch*
de his qui fero nuniine puJiiuntur . hi or . Od. xxviii. 30*
lib. i. et vi. 1. lib. iii. Firg . Georg . i. 501. et JEneld.
viii. 484.

That Mofes had as delicate feelings in regard to the
promifcuous deftru&ion of the righteous and wicked
as any Freethinker whatever, may be feen in Numbers
xvi. 22. when God, through Moles, direCts the Ifrael-
ites to have no mercy on the Canaanites, as Deut. vii. 2.
nor to pity the idolaters, Deut. xiii. 8. It is no more
than a judicial fentence of death, as may be feen by
the cafe of the 'murderer, Deut. xix. 13. See alfo
Deut. xxv. 12.

A queftion often arifes in the difcuftion of this point,
which is not unfVequently determined againft the Bible;
namely, whether God’s exprefs direction is in reality, as
' to

NOTES TO SERMON I.

to its moral effedb, different from his permiffion ; and I
mention it the more freely, becaufe in another Gafe In¬
fidels feem to have decided it, againft themfelves. In
the queftion of necejjity they make no difference be¬
tween the permiffion and immediate direction of mo¬
tives. See the King of Prujfia s Letters to Voltaire : Si Car
<tf que Dieu nous donne la liberie demal faire , ou qu’il nous
cc P0UJIe wwiediatement au crime , cela revient a-peu-pres
cc au meme; il n’y a que du plus ou du moms.’’ There¬
fore if we had only fatalijls to deal with, there would
clearly be no queftion about this: for that evils happen
through God’s permiffion without an impeachment of
his mercy, &c. none doubt but Atheifts. <c Quod per-
“ mittitur a caufa potenti,” fays the learned Dr. Burnet
of the Charter- Houfe , quodammodo approbating ft non
i( abfolute, faltem comparate.” It has been very well
obferved by the learned Dr. Leland, in his reply to Tin-
da!, that “ if all the events that are related in Scripture
i( had been barely recorded, without affigning any reafon
t<r for them at all, they would not probably be thought
cc an objedtion either againft Scripture or Providence,
cc fince many of the fame kind occur in the hiftory of
e{ all ages and nations.” Part ii. ch. 12 , 13. And in¬
deed this is moft true ; and it would be difficult to fay
by what fentiment the unbeliever is led to be fo com-
paffionate towards every idolater whom the holy Scrip¬
tures defcribe as buffering under the hand of God,
while the daily calamities that are buffered to fall pro-
mifcuouOy on the juft and unjuft, the old and the
young, give no ffiock to his reafon. God by his fer-
vant Mofes commands the earth to open, and fwallow
up the impious Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. The Deift
is (hocked. His reafon revolts. God permits a quantity
of matter to ferment and kindle in the bowels of the
earth, and overthrows a beautiful and fertile country,
inhabited by millions of perfons. The Deift contem¬
plates the fcene, compaffionates the fufferers perhaps,
but falls into no diftruft whatfoever of the mercy and
loving-kindnefs of the God of nature ! — M. de Voltaire
compaffionates Agag ; and yet, let the punifhment be j udg-
ed of as it may, he could not without prejudice appear
very amiable in M. de Voltaire’s eyes ; for what had
he done ? u His fword had made women childlefs.”

1 Sam.

NOTES TO SERMON I,

i Sam. xv. 23. That M. de Voltaire was liable to fuch
■ prejudices , fee his Such de Louis XI L. where he can find
excufes enough for many moil flagitious crimes.

This note is already too long ; I ftiall therefore bring
it to a conclufion with this general remark upon the
Bible hi (lory, confidered in regard to the times to which
it refers. In the holy Scriptures then we certainly
read of many nations and individuals being forewarned
of evils coming upon them unlefs they would repent,
and of many evils being averted from them upon their
repentance: we read of many grofs wickednefles ade¬
quately punifhed, fuch as murder , incejl, adultery , theft,
and treachery : we read of nothing more frequently than
the difcountenancing of idolatry in all its forms, and
with all its horrid and difgufting rites. But in profane
hiftories, efpecially thofe that reach back to the times
and events recorded in Scripture, we read of fimilar evils,
without any notice or warning, falling promifcuoufiy on
the deferring and un defer vkig, without mitigation or
alternative . We read of incefts, rapes, murders, and
every poffible atrocity committed without fcruple, and
without any fpecific punifhment. And we read of the
grofleft idolatry accompanied with the bafeft and moft
abominable practices, and with fcarce one inftance of
true and genuine religion. Of wars we read in both
hiftories, and of the ruin and deftru&ion of divers peo¬
ple : but in regard to the wars in the land of Canaan,
independent of ; all other confiderations, two things are
noticeable which are generally overlooked : firft, that
the Canaanites had warning given them of what was
coming upon them, and for what caufe , as appears from
what Rachel fays, Jofhua ii. 9, 10, &c. and what the
Gibeonites declared to Jofhua, chap. ix. Secondly, that
all the cities and nations, which the Ifraelites deftroyed,
appeared in arms againft them ; not one of them made
overtures of peace, or teftified a wifh for it ; nay, fome
of them even made war againft thofe who did do fo,
and merely on that account. See Jofhua x. 4.

Page 13. note (11).

Winch is not attainable by the Theologian .] Mr. Gibbon
is tempted to ridicule the Abbe dela Bleterie’s wifh, that
fome Theologien Philofophe would undertake the refuta¬
tion

NOTES TO SERMON I.

tion of Julian : “ a ftrange Centaur !” he remarks. See
note 31. ch. xxiii. Such Centaurs however have exiited,
do exift, and always may exift.

Page 14. note (i 2).

They wifh Revelation to be examined in all its points and
bcarinpsh] Without any fear of its not being found able
to endure the examination and fcrutmy of Reajon, as
Mr. Hume prefumes to infinuate, vol. ii. EJ/ays, p. H6*
See Dr. Campbell’s excellent remarks in his DiJJertation
on Miracles , pp. 232, 233. and the conclufion ot Bijbof
Warburtan s Trad on Grace.

Page 15. note ( 13 .)

Upon this general view of the Scripture, I would
« remark, how great a length of time the whole rela¬
te tion takes up, near fix thoufand years ot. which
<c are paft 5 and how great a variety of things it treats
i( of: the natural and moral fyftem or hiftory of the
<e world, including the time when it was firfi: formed,
« all contained in the very firfi; book, and evidently
“ written in a rude and unlearned age ; and in fubfe-
« quent books, the various common and prophetic
“ hiftory, and the particular difpenfation of Chrifti-
tc anity. Now all this together gives the largeft fcope
a for criticifm, and for confutation of what is cape-
« ble of being confuted, either from reafon or from
<< common hiftory, or from any inconfiftence in its
« feveral parts. And it is a thing which deferves, I
£C think, to be mentioned, that whereas fome imagine,
« the fuppofed doubtfulnefs of the evidence for reve¬
re lation implies a pofitive argument that it is not true ,
« it appears, on the contrary, to imply a pofitive argu¬
te nient that it is true. For could any common relation,
“ of fuch antiquity, extent, and variety, (for in thefe
“ things the ftrels of what I am now obferving lies,)
“ be propofed to the examination of the world, that it
cc could not in an age of knowledge and liberty be con-
<< futed, or fhewn to have nothing in it to the fatisfac-
(C tion of reafonable men ; this would be thought a
« ftrong prefumptive proof of its truth.” Butler’s Ana¬
logy, Part II. chap. vii. p. 380.

Page

NOTES TO SERMON I.

Page 1 6. note (14).

Such a conneded chain of fads. We may add fo uni¬
form a hiftory in all refpecls. For, as Juftin Martyr
well obferves, the agreement of the facred writers is
argument fufficient of their infpiration, compared with
the inconfiftencies and contradidtions to be found in all
thelyftems of the Pagan philofophers, Plato and Ariftotle
not excepted; and confidering the fubjedls upon which
they agreed. His expreffions are very ftrong ; they in-
ftrudf us, lays he, “''flarfsp kvog s’Oydlog jc, fag yXcorlyjg
“ xa) Ttsp) ®soy, xa) tfsp) xoapis xrlasicg, xa) ntso) nxdascug *Av-
“ SpcvTfov, xa) tfsp) dvQpicvlyry fjyyg dQavacrlag, xa) fog ysrd
“ toy (3 iov rovrov foXXovayg xfiasccg, xa) Ttep) rfavlcvv icy avay-
xaiov rjaav kfov dP&vai — dxoXovQcog xa) <rvu,<pcavcvg dXXrfooig —
“ xa) raora sv Stapopoig roitolg xa) yjovoig." Cohort, ad Gre¬
cos, p. 7. edit. Sylburg. 1593. See a^° introdudtion
to the Arijlotelian Dodrines, where he notices the
agreement of the facred writers in regard to the crea¬
tion, as well as in refpe<T to the Deity himfelf.

Page 18. note (15) .

Mr. Paine’s Age of Reafon perhaps was the moft mif-
chievous book that appeared, from its fmall lize and
popular ftyle : but many other writers continually de-
feribe the Eera of the French revolution by the title he
adopted for his book. See Dr. Darwin s Zoonomia ,
Godwin s Polit. Jujiice , and IVolJlone croft’ s View of the
French Revolution. But the greateft dillindtion of this
'peculiar Age of Reafon is, afluredly, the abfurd and
idolatrous deification of her in the French republic:
and the fpirit of the age may be well difeerned in
the painting of the celebrated David, hung up in the
Htitel des Invalides , delineating the triumph of man
over Religion and Royalty , the Goddefs of Reafon be¬
ing deferibed as encouraging and approving the over¬
throw of thrones and altars. This overthrow is height¬
ened in the picture alluded to by every thing vio¬
lent, horrid, and iniquitous. All of which, it is (hock¬
ing to fay, has been, in the courfe of the revolu¬
tion, fully realifed. And as to the catajlrophe of this
great ftruggle, furely we may now (1804) apply what
Laclantius lays, to their deification of both Reafon and

E Liberty .

5o NOTES TO SERMON I.

Libertv “ Has ero-o falfas confecrationes fequitur quod
« necefle eft. Qufenin/ virtutes fic colunt, id eft, cmi
ee umbras et imagines virtutum confe£fantur ; ea ipla
“ qiue vere funt, tenere non poffuntT ’ Lib. 1. 20. I am
forry to add to this note, that our own metropolis was
dilgraced by a temple of Reafon. The following is a
concife account of the dedication of fuch temples in the
city of Paris, taken from the addrefs of a refpe&able ma-
giftrate of the United States to the grand jury of Lu¬
zerne county, and inferted by Mr. Fuller in his Tra£l
on Deifm. “They ordered < the Temple of Reafon’ to be
“ inferibed on the churches, in contempt of the doc-
54 trine of Revelation. Atheiftical and licentious ho-^
milies have been publiftied in the churches inftead of
« the old fervice, and a ludicrous imitation of the
Greek mythology exhibited under the title of 4 the
- < Religion of Reafon: Nay, they have gone fo far as to
<£ drefs up a common {trumpet with the molt fantaftic
“ decorations, whom they blafphemoufty ftyled the
<< c GoddeJ's of Reafon f and who was carried to church on
“ the fhoulders of fome Jacobins, fele&ed for the pur-
<< pofe, efcorted by the National Guards, and the confti-
tuted Authorities. When they got to the church,
“ the (trumpet was placed on the altar ere&ed for the
« purpofe, and harangued the people ; who in return
“ profefled the deepeft adoration to her, and fung the
Carmagnole and other fongs, by way of worfhipping
her. This horrid feene— almoft too horrid to relate—
“ was concluded by burning the Prayer-book, Confef-
« fional, and every thing appropriated to . the ufe of
« public worth ip : numbers in the mean time danced
tc round the flames with every appearance of frantic
« and infernal mirth.” I (hall only add, that this was
at the very time when the National Convention applauded
and fandioned the fpeech of M. Dupont, wherein he pro-
felled himfelf an Atheifi ; and wherein were the follow¬
ing curious expreffions: “Thrones are overturned!

Sceptres broken ! Kings expire ! And yet the altars
f£ of God remain ! A {ingle breath of enlightened Rea-
ce fon will now be fufficient to make them difappear

Nature and Reafon , thefe ought to be the Gods of men 1
“ Thefe are my Gods !”

Rage

NOTES TO SERMON L

Page 19. note (1 6).

cc Quos equidem fi putarem fatis idoneos ad bene vi-
iC vendum duces ede, et ipfe fequerer, et alios ut feque-
“ rentur hortarer.” LaCtantius , lib. i.

Page 20. note (17) .

“ The fufpicion, that the theory of what is called the
“ Chriftian religion is fabulous, is becoming very ex-
ct tenfive in all countries.” Age of Reafon. The
“ Chriftian theory” (Query, what does this mean ?)
“ is little elfe than the idolatry of the ancient mytho-
ee logifts, accommodated to the purpofes of power and
“ profit. And it yet remains to Reafon and Philofophy
“ to abolifti the amphibious fraud.” Our prefent age,
fays M. de Gebelin, Author of the Monde Primitif
has made the mod rapid ftrides towards perfe&ion.
“ Notre fiecle eft le fiecle des decouvertes et des lu-
“ mieres ;” probably, “ nous touchons au moment de
“ la grande revolution, que le rctabli dement du grand
<c ordre eft referve a notre fiecle.” M. de Gebelin did
not rely upon Reafon, but upon the vifible order of
Nature , to fet us to rights. In this, both himfelf and
Roudeau, who was for trufting every thing to confcience
or feeling, didered from mod other modern Deifts. In
other refpefts they may both be confidered as confpi-
cuous characters of the Age of Reafon. M. de Gebelin
was a believer in animal magnetifm, ancient forcery,
aftrology, &c. Of the latter he fays in one of his writ¬
ings, “ dont, malgre les abus, on n’a jamais pu demon-
“ trer ni l’incertitude, ni l’inutilite.” They were both
advocates for the fyftem of “ perfectibility 5” but fo
widely diderent in their ideas, that while M. de Ge-
belin’s doCfrine was cc PerfeCfionnez vous,” Roudeau,s
was, (C Ne vous perfeCtionnez pas.”

Page 21. note (18) .

LaClantius had pbilofopbers to deal with, of whom he
fays, “ aut omnino nihil fciunt, idque ipfum pro dim-
“ ma fcientia prae fe ferunt ; aut qui non perfpiciunt
u etiam quae fciunt ; aut qui, quoniam fe putant fcire,
“ quae nefciunt, inepte arroganterque defipiunt.” Lib.
vi. 18. Inflit ut.

K 2

“ If

5s NOTES TO SERMON I.

“ If this age/’ fays Bp. Berkeley, <c be Angularly
cc productive ot infidels, I {hall not therefore conclude
(( it to be more knowing, but only more prefuming,

C£ than former ages.” Minute Pbilojopber > p*345*

Page 21. note (19).

She has been invited to interfere.'] That fome of the
primitive Fathers of the Church encouraged and invited
the examination of their doctrines, iee Church s Anjeier
to Middleton, ch.viii, §. 9. where he defends Tertullian.
Though the Fathers recommended fubmifhon to God s
Revelation, when once known to be a Revelation ; yet
they by no means precluded enquiry into the truth of
the Revelation. See Athanajii Opera , tom. ii. 325. and
Clemens Alex and. Strom, lib. v. p. 550, ^y

wards in his Prefervative againjl Socinianifm, pp. 9. 13*
See alfo pp. 16, 17. of the fame work, as to the pro¬
vince of Peajon in judging of a divine Revelation, and
Bp. Stilling fleet' s Origines Sacree> pp. 148, 149. B. II.

chap. viii. 1

With regard to many of the works with which the
prefs has teemed in this age of Reafon , we may oblerve
with Mrs. Weft, in her admirable Letters to her Son,
that “ their authors do not audacioufly demand to be
heard at the bar of manly Reafon : they know that
tribunal unfavourable. It is to juvenile readers that
“ they apply.” We might add, that, for the fame rea¬
fon, the weak and illiterate have been appealed to, in
works not calculated to deceive the well-inflruBed. It
is remarkable, that even Dr. Prieftley and Dr. Geddes
are to be fufpe&ed of fuch defigns : the former in the
preface to his Early Opinions , 8tc. fays, “ Leaft of all
“ can I expert to make any impreftions on thofe who
“ are advanced in life : my chief expectations are from
tf the young and from poflerity And the latter , in the
preface to his Verfion of the Pentateuch, pxprefles a.
hope, that, by his “free manner of interpreting the Bi-
“ ble, he may procure its being read and ftudied by
« fajhionable fcholars, and the Jons of fcience.” p. 13.
It is alfo well oblerved by Mr. Fuller, in the introduc¬
tion of his work, entitled The GoJ'pel its own Wit -
nej's, that, “ notwithftanding all the boafts of Reafon
“ among modern Deifts, not one in ten of them can be

“ kept

NOTES TO SERMON I. 53

u kept to the fair and honourable ufe of this weapon.
“ O11 the contrary, they are driven to fubftitute dark
‘£ infinuation, low wit, profane ridicule, and grofs ab-
(( ufe. Such were the weapons of Shaftefbury, Tindal,
u Morgan, Bolingbroke, Voltaire, Hume, and Gibbon ;
“ and luch are the weapons of the author of the shoe
“ of Re af on d'

Rage 21. note 20.

<e Si les Deifies avoient pu fe choifir une epoque pro-
pre a provigner leurs fentimens, laquelle auroient-
fC ils preferee ? reduits, comme ils le font, a combattre
u avec des fophifmes, ils auroient du choifir un fiecle
ee ou l’on le piquat plus de briber que de raifonner ; ou
le bel efprit jouat de grand role, ou le ridicule fur-
tout fut de tons les fleaux le plus redoute ; ou la li-
cence des moeurs donnat a la religion un air auftere
“ et fauvage. N’eft-ce pas la le tableau de l’Europe
(c depuis au moins quatre-vingts ans ?” See a fmall
work, entitled, L’Impie demafque. The author con-,
eludes, from the fmall fuccefs of Deifls with fuch ad¬
vantages on their fide, in addition to their own talents,
and their indefatigable exertions, that they never cart
be expe&ed to prevail.

Rage 23. note (21).

Man was meant to be left in ignorance^ I would here
obferve, that the peculiar manner, in which the internal
vifeera are fecluded from our own infpedtion, would
feem to offer a complete reply to the fancy of thofe
who have conceived, that one time or other C( Mind
6< would become omnipotent over matter inlb much as to
give us u a power of maintaining the human body in
“ perpetual youth and vigour.” Godwin. This is one
of the mod brilliant profpedts modern philofophy feems
to have opened to us. There would appear however
to be a precife barrier edablifhed in the human frame,
which we are forbidden to pafs, if the following ac¬
count of Ganglions be admiffible ; namely, that being
attached wholly to nerves which fupply the organs
which have involuntary motion, and being wo/z-eledtric
bodies, they are the checks which prevent our volitions
from extending to them. See the Philofophy of Medi¬
cine, vol. ii. p. 174. and pp. 179, 180 ; where the em-

e 3 barralfments,

-4 NOTES TO SERMON I.

barrafifments, that might have enfued from fubjeaing
the vital involuntary motions to the will of the indivi¬
dual are well detailed. In Nieuwentyt’ s Religious FhiLoJo-
pher it is obferved, that thofe parts only that have their
nerves from the cerebellum , as the arms, hands, legs,
&rC. are fubiedt to the will, and not thole which derive
their nerves from the cerebrum , as the heart, arteries,
ftomach, bowels, &c. See alio Synopfis Metapcyfic*

Glafg. Part, iii . cap. i. edit. 41 and g?01^"

marks on what God has concealed from us, in the Dia¬
logue on Syftematic Phyfics, in the SpeBacle de la
Mature. “ Ubi ergo fapientia eft? Ut neque te omnia
“feire putes; quod Dei eft; neque ouima neicire,

“ quod pecudis. Eft enim aliquod medium, quod lit
“ Hominis, id eft, fcientia cum ignoratione conjuncta et
« temperata.” Labi. Injlit . lib. iii. 6. See alio lib. n.

dap. 8.

Page 25. note (22).

As to the aBual certainty of the matter .] “ Hardly do
u we guefs aright at things that are upon earth, and
“ with labour do we find the things that are before us ;
(C but the thin ^s that are in heaven who hath fearched
« out > And thy counfel who hath known ? Except
« thou give wifdom, and fend thy Holy Spirit from
“ above.” Wifdom ix. 16, 17. How valuable an exam¬
ple alfo have we tor the modeft ufe of our lealon in
regard to fuch fpeculations, as well as for our reliance
on° Revelation alone, in the cafe of the prophet Eze¬
kiel; who being afked, in the Valley of Bones, whether
they could revive, only replied, “ O Lord God, thou
64 knoweft.” chap, xxxvii. ver. 3. See alio fome damna¬
ble and very applicable paffages, Ecclefiafticus 111. 21
2r. Without Revelation, fays Archbp. Tillotfon, “ man
« i‘s fecure of nothing he enjoys in this world, and un-
certain of every thing he hopes for.” But left thefe
references fhould be difputed, lee the 4th Reflexion,
§ t8. of the PhiloJ'ophie du Bon Sens of the Marquis
d’Argens, and Mr. Gibbon’s 15th chapter; where is the
following remark : “ As the mod lublirne efforts of
« philofophy,” fays he, “ can extend no further than
<< to point out the defire, the hope, or at moft the pro-
<c bability of a future date, there is nothing but^a di-
a vine Revelation that can afcertain its exiftence,”

NOTES TO SERMON I.

Page 27. note (23).

IVhat we can 7iow ordy behold , &c.~\ That our merely
bodily faculties are capable of more than the common
ufes we put them to at prefent, it feenis reafonable to
conjecture, from the application of optical inftruments,
which do not alter the organ of vifion, but only tend to
vary the medium through which we behold objects.

Page 28. note (24)*

The age of Reafon camiot be an age when Reafon is to
ad without regard to thefe intellectual treasures l ] Ci In
(i difquifitions on which we cannot determine without
“ much learned investigation, Reafon uninformed is by
“ no means to be depended on.” Soame Jenyns. It is
a remark of Roufteau, in opposition to la Mothe and
1’ Abbe Terraffon, that human Reafon cannot now be
faid to be really advanced as a faculty ; for what it has
gained on one fide it has loft on the other. u Que tous
£C les efprits partent toujours du meme point, et que le
<£ temps qu’on emploie a favoir ce que d’autres ont
“ penfe etant perdu pour apprendre a penfer foi-meme,
uon a plus de lumieres acquifes, et moins de vigueur
“ d’efprit.” Emile , liv. iv. 20 6. “ In regard to know-

£< ledge,” fays the ingenious Mrs. Weft, ££ it is fair to
££ fay, we live in a late period, heirs to a rich inherit-
££ ance.” See her Letters to her Son , Lett. iii.

Of all the works that Should be confulted in an age
of Reafon , by thofe who are really difpofed to confider
it as Such, I would by all means recommend the fol¬
lowing excellent Traas of Mr. Boyle. . I refer to the
folio edition of his works. Vol. iii. article 28. On the
Reconcileablenefs of Reafon and Religion . Vol. iv. art. 10.
A Difcourfe of Things' above Reafon. Ib. art. 20. On the
high Veneration PA an owes to God peculiar for his JVifdom
and Power. Ib. art. 21. A free Enquiry into the vulgarly
received notion of Nature. Ib. art. 24. A Difquifition
about the Pinal Caufes of Natural Things . Vol. v. art. 2.
The Chriftian Virtuofo, with the Appendix 9 and fecond
Rart, articles 10 and ii._

SERMON

. v -

- "

- ... •••

• •

T :• ■

' , - V • •.

• ,

Sc > .

► ,,

» ’ \

. ' . *

■ :

■

SERMON II.

Acts v. 38, 39.

And now I fay unto you, Refrain from thefe men, and let
them alone : For if this counfel or this work be of man ,
it will come to nought :

But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.

In my lad: Difcourfe I confidered this ad¬
vice of the learned Jew as fupplying us with
a ted of the truth of our mod; holy religion,
not only particularly adapted to the proof of
its being of God, but as including a call
upon every true Chriftian to examine, from
time to time, what has been done, or may
be doing, by man, to bring it “ to nought.

I alfo noticed the fignificant title, which
had been given to the age in which we live;
and I confefled myfelf not unwilling to ac¬
knowledge, that, from the rapid advance¬
ment of human knowledge of late years,
Reafon might now have fome advantages

die could not command before ; fo that

man’s

SERMON II.

man’s oppofition to Revelation, as far as the
latter depends for its reception on argument,
or learning, or difcoveries, may in this late
conteft have appeared more critical than in
former ones (').

There is fcarce one doctrine of Revela¬
tion, or even a fad, recorded in the books of
Scripture, at which the human Reafon has
not at different times taken offence. She
revolts at the hiftory of the creation of the
earth, and particularly at the low a*ra af-
figned to it ; at the account of the origin of
the human fpecies, the temptation and fall
of man, and introduction of evil into the
world ; at the call of the Ifraelites ; the in-
ftitution of facrifices ; the extirpation of ido-
lators. She will not hear of redemption and
atonement by blood, the Incarnation, or the
Trinity. She will not hear to be told, that
flie needs any fupernatural infraction, but
frill confidently maintains, or rather more
confidently than ever was the cafe before,
that the vifible works of God are the only
Revelation we can expect or defire, not only
of the power, and wijdom, and majefty of
the fupreme Being, but of his word and his
will (*).

Our

SERMON II.

Our reply to many of thefe objections
would lie in a narrow compafs, if we could
have leave to reduce the feveral queftions to
their true terms, and confine them within
their proper limits ; but where hijlory and
criticifm fliould decide, we are for ever in¬
terrupted by metaphyfical and moral argu¬
ments, wholly inapplicable to the cafe. If
we were to comply with all the demands of
Deifts, we fhould not be allowed to ap¬
peal to the Canon of Scripture, till we had
determined by a priori reafoning both the
utility and neceflity of Revelation in gene¬
ral. We fliould not be allowed to plead
the evidence of miracles, till we had not
only demonftrated their poflibility, but the
fufliciency and competency of any evidence
to prove them true. It is not recolle&ed all
the while, that if the Scriptures are but au¬
thentic , there can be no doubt upon any of
thefe points. And it is a remarkable cir-
cumfiance, and can only be referred to the
efpecial blefling and providence of Cod, that
if the facred books are not authentic, they
are peculiarly capable of contradiction : and
perhaps never more fo than in this age, fo

much

SEEM ON II.

much boafted, not of Reafon merely, but of
experiment and enquiry.

New objections there may ftill be none to
notice ( 3 ), but only fuch additions to old
ones, as the advancement of knowledge juft
alluded to may have ferved to fupply. I have
propofed fome arrangement of thefe objec¬
tions, by referring them to the feveral heads
of History, Physics, Metaphysics, Ethics,
and Criticism : an arrangement, which, as
far as it can be done, I ftill mean to purfue.
Under the head of History I propofe to
confider the extraordinary defeat of all re¬
cords and hiftorical monuments, that could
be alleged to be in pofiiive contradiction to
the Mofaic writings ; even now that the
whole globe has been traverfed, and every
enquiry of that nature purfued and encou¬
raged in a way unknown before. Under the
head of Physics I purpofe to give an ac¬
count of the invincible obftacles, that feem
to be in the way of our attaining to any
clear comprehenfion of the caufes that have
operated in time pajl in the body of the
earth ; fo as to enable us to form any con¬
jectures from thence concerning the high or

low

SERMON II.

6 1

low antiquity of the general mafs of our
globe. I fliall notice the confent of many
celebrated naturalifts to the low antiquity of
our prefent continents, as deduced from ob-
fervation, and the extraordinary fadts that
tend to corroborate the Scripture accounts
of an univerfal deluge. Under the head of
Metaphysics I fliall have fome remarks to
make on the prefent Rate of the quefiions,
concerning the materiality of the foul , and
the necejfity of human adions ; and I fhall
have frequent occaiion incidentally to notice
the inefficacy of all fpeculative reafonings
on certain fubjedts connected with Theology .
Under Ethics I propofe to confider the in-r
difpenfable neceffity of a divine Revelation
for moral purpofes ; to notice fome of the
rn oft ofFenfive moral principles and fyflems
of modem reformers, and to fliew how ably
Chriflianity has been vindicated from the
charge of omiffions in this line. And under
the head of Criticism I fliall endeavour to
point out the great abufes to which it has
been expofed ; its great utility to fecure
us from the mifreprefentations of modern
Deifts ; and the fatisfadlory manner, in which
it has recently been applied to confute

the

SERMON II.

the dogmatical aflertions of modern Unita¬
rians.

But there are ftill fome points, which will
require to be conlidered in a more general
way, and which cannot be dillinftly brought
under any of thefe heads. Such as the very
extraordinary difference lately manifefted in
refpeft to the feparation of the two Cove -
nants, and the divine authority of the Old
Tejlament ; and in regard to the prejudices
and prepojfejjions , which have been faid to
Hand in the way of the due exercife of Rea-
fon/ and more particularly in this place.

An eminent fceptic a lays it down as one
reafon for the ancient Pagan religions being
much loofer than the modern, that the for¬
mer were traditional , and the latter fcriptu-
raL In this he may have been right ; but
when he adds, that having no Canon , the
Pagan religions feemed to vanifh like a cloud,
when one approached to them and examined
them piecemeal, we may furely infill upon
it, that this ivant of a Canon could not be
the chief occafion of their wcaknefs and in -
liability . A traditional religion may find a

a Hume.

thou-

SERMON II.

thoufand fubterfuges and means of efcape,
when attacked, which will not be the cafe
with a fcriptural one : and fo inconfiftcnt
are Deifts, that I find this exprefsly admitted
by another writer, no lefs eminent than the
former for his enmity to our tooft holy reli¬
gion11. The Canon forms one determinate
objeCt, againlt which every bolt may be di¬
rected ; it cannot fhelter itfelf under any ob-
fcure tradition, or bring forward falfe le¬
gends and unheard-of tales to fupport its
finking credit : it muft ftand alone, and
fpeak for itfelf c; at lead fuch is the Hate of
things according to the articles of our efta-
bliftied Church. We have no tradition or
infallible judge to decide for us authorita¬
tively. We admit no Canon but the Holy
Scriptures : thefe may be perverted, (for the
Socinians pervert them d,) but they cannot
be corrupted or altered e.

We fliould have a juft right therefore to
infill upon referring every queflion to the

b Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Rom. Emp. c. xxiii. p. 71,
c See Letters on Mythology, 120. 126. T30. London. 1748.
d See Edwards’s Prefervative againft Socinianifm, partiv. 71.-
e Jenkins’s Reafonablenefs of Chriftianity, vol. ii. p. 117.

authen-

SERMON II.

authenticity of the Scriptures; for if they are
but true, we muft Hand reafonably acquitted
of all undue prejudice, in fubmitting to the
doctrines they contain ; and fo have they
been tranfmitted to us, that it is fcarcely
poffible to conceive that any writings could
cxift, more capable of confirmation if true,

of contradiction if falfe.

The Author of the Pentateuch wrote of
faBs, and the Prophets prophefied of faBs.
The Author of the Pentateuch relates, that
the world began at a certain period, (not a
period fo remote, as that no annals could
reach it ; but, in comparifon with the fabri¬
cated records of many nations, a recent pe¬
riod,) and that a certain people lived under
a theocracy (4). Thefe are extraordinary
fads to relate, becaufe they muft have been
expofed, from the very firft, to many contra¬
dictory evidences, the failure of which muft
be allowed to operate as a confirmation. The
world might manifeftly have been proved,
from the after- difcovery of regular hiftori-
cal records, from refpeCtable tradition, from
the fuperior antiquity of arts and fciences in
fome places, to be older. The interior of
the earth, perhaps the form and faihion of the

earth

itfelf, might have fupplied chronometers of
irrefragable authority. And as to the theo¬
cracy, hiftoiy might have been found to re¬
cord, not the difcomfiture and overthrow,
but the triumphs of idolatry. The know¬
ledge of the true God, according to the
Scriptures, was in the early ages confined to
a fmall difiridl comparatively, and we have
the concurrent teftimony of profane hiftory
to prove the general prevalence of idolatry
all around. Do the records of the world
teftify, that the knowledge of the true God
was propagated f from this fmall diftridt,
where the theocracy was faid to prevail , to
the overthrow of idolatry ? or did their
powerful and idolatrous neighbours, who
difputed their pretenfions , prevail againfi;
them ?

Again, the Prophets prophefied o ffatrts to
happen. It is an ealy enquiry. Have they
happened ? have they been fulfilled ? They
prophefied ot many fadts ; many connected
fadts : Have any fuch taken place ? ( 5 ) Can
we fix upon any feries of events correfpond-

1 Lcland's View of Deijlical Writers , vol. ii. Letter 28. and
the Mifccllaneous Ohfervations of Jonathan Edwards, § , 26,

ent

SERMON XI.

ent thereto ? They fpecified particular times,
particular places, particular perfons: Have
any events tallied in thefe feveral points ?
Thefe are all curious enquiries, and depend
on fuch refearches as Ihould at all events
give a confequence to the inveftigation : re¬
fearches and enquiries, which, fo far from
Xhrinking from, we claim at the hands or
our adverfaries, as an act of jutlice. And
Xhall we Hill fubmit to he told, that our re¬
verence for the Bible is “ the effect of pre-
“ judice !” that our “ faith is not rational !”

that we “ believe without anv rational mo-

•/

“ tives for belief/’ and only on the “ poll-
tive aflertions of an affiimed authority,
<<r which we have never difcufled, and indeed
“ durfi: not quetlion !” and that, in Ihort,
our religion is only “ the fruit of unenlight-
“ ened credulity ! (6 )” -

Such mifreprefentations, which have been
but too common in all ages, have been more
unjuftifiably than ever revived of late. A ce¬
lebrated feceder from the eftabliihed Church,
in one of his publications, is thus pleated to
fpeak of the inftitution of thefe very lec¬
tures : “ Even public lectures,” fays lie,
“ have been eftablithed, and flipends an-

- “ nexed

SERMON II.

“ nexed to the preachers of them, not to en-
“ courage men in the Jludy of Scriptures ,
“ and in interpreting them in the fenfe that
“ approved itfelf to their own judgment , but
“ in agreement with that which was die-
“ tated by others And could it be then
to encourage the idle and unprincipled, that
thefe lectures were founded ? Could they be
deiigned to fanCtion hypoerify, and reward
ignorance ? Was it to Hide learning in its
very cradle, and to preclude enquiry and ar¬
gument, in contradiction to the public infti-
tutes of the place, which afford every en¬
couragement, and fupply every help con™
ducive to the proper exercife and right con¬
duct of both ? The will of the pious and re¬
ligious Founder is no mandate: it was never
meant to be fo ; it could never operate as
fuch. It is an invitation and encourage¬
ment, held out to thofe who believe the

, /

fame truths , and acknowledge the fame faith,
to affifl in the propagation of them for the
behoof of others. It was manifeftly fo de-
figned ; and I would venture to affirm, in
no one inftance has the principle ever been
departed from(7).

Another popular writer has alleged as a

f 2 charge

S E R M O N II.

charge againft our Univerjities, that their*
forms of education all tend to encourage and
fupport the “ JyJlem of permanence” that is,
to inculcate and diffufe what has been dif-
covered of old, rather than to aflift in the
difeovery of wdiat remains to be known ( 8 ).
But furely, if we have attained to any cer¬
tainty in any fcience, if the human mind
has reafon to be fatisfied as to the progrefs
made in any branch of knowledge, this
Jhould be taught as permanent , unlefs fome
very unexpected events fliould occur, to over-
fet the principles on which it is founded.
The lcience of aftronomy, for inftance, muft
furely be taught as fettled in regard to its
moll important principles, by our great
countryman ; not however to the exclufton
of any proper and juft examination of tliofe
principles themfelves. And can we doubt
whether our molt holy religion fliould be
taught and inculcated on a footing of per-
manence, by thofe who are entirely fatisfied
with its doctrines and morality, and fo al¬
lured of the authenticity of the facred vo¬
lumes, as to believe that no lefs than a fe-
cond manifeft interpofttion of God could ever
prove them falfe ? The queftion then* if it

lias

SERMON II.

has any immediate reference to Religion,
ftiould be reduced to this : Is any thing fo
taught in the Univerfities as permanent , as
to preclude enquiry ? Far otherwife : and it
might be particularly infilled on, that even
fuch inftitutions as are exprefsly formed for
the fupport and defence of old eltablifti-
ments and received opinions, mull provide
for the due examination and refutation of
all adverfe fyftems : argument mull be op<*
pofed to argument, tetiimony to teftimony,
criticifm to criticifm.

It would be well for the world, if this
“ fyftem of permanence” had been univer-
fally adhered to with the fame manly fteadi-
nefs and cautious prudence, which have not
only diftinguifiied the Univerfities of this
land, in thefe times, but the country in ge¬
neral. We have juft caufe to pride ourfelves

in the reflection,' that we have not, like
others, madly abandoned to the rude de¬
mands of fpeculators and reformers, opi¬
nions and principles, fyftems and inftitutions,
fanftioned by experience, and recommended
by the confent and approbation of the wife
and good, and learned of all ages. We have
manfully withftood the indifcriminate outcry

f 3 againft

7°

SERMON II.

again# prejudices , not precluding enquiry ,
but very wifely turning our enquiries on the
new principles propofed to us. We were
not to be deluded into the llrange belief,
that indifference to all Religion, both fpecu -
lative and practical , was the be# qualifica¬
tion for the examination of divine truths,
and that all reverence and refpeCl for the
Bible were to be laid afide, before we could
be competent to judge of the doCtrines it
contains. Thefe preparatives, if not ex-
prefsly infilled on, have been in more in-
Ranees than one approved and recommend¬
ed, as the only means of attaining to “ a ra-
“ tional lyltem of faith (9).” Thofe who
begin to argue with us by perfuading us to
dive# ourfelves of prejudices, fhould always
excite our fufpicion. What they call preju¬
dices may be very valuable principles ; and
inllead of fecuring ourfelves from delufion
by furrendering them at diferetion, we may
very poflibly be parting with the be# means
of fecurity again# deception of the worll
kind. No man comes into the world capa¬
ble of helping himfelf ; nobody comes into
the world fo unconnected as to depend en¬
tirely upon his own individual powers and

difeern-

SERMON II.

difcernment : he mult require help and guid¬
ance, and to have the path of life pointed
out to him, by thofe who have travelled the
road before him. Muft he neglect all fuch
directions, and lofe himfelf in a wildernefs,
in order to have a better chance of difcern-
ing- his way, as the random information of
thofe he happens to meet may feem reafon-
able or not ? Had he not better keep Iteadily
to the “ old paths,” and be fearful of quit¬
ting them, except it fhall be made clear and
certain, that they lead to dcfiruBion P ( 10 )
Why fhould we not fufpect thofe who would
endeavour to perfuade us, that ourfelves, and
our fathers, and our fathers fathers, have all
been deceived ; that parental care has only
been exerted to feduce us into error ; and
that, if we will but believe this, we fhall be
more in the way to be happy, and better
able to diftinguifh between truth and falfe-
liood ?

It is thus that any principles may be got
rid of ; and the times afford us a memorable
inltance of an expedient of the fame nature
in morals, which fucceeded, to the difgrace
of the age, and the difguft of every feeling
mind. Under pretence of amplifying and

f 4 enlarging

72-

SERMON II.

enlarging the glorious principle of imwerjal
benevolence, fo perfectly and fo correctly in¬
culcated and enforced, both by precept and
parable, in Chrift’s Gofpel, every private
connexion was fhamefullv mifreprefented,
and the firft duties of life, the parental, the
filial, the conjugal, were all trampled upon,
and made a mockery of! For the good of
mankind, as it was pretended, the fon led
his father to the fcaffold, the father drove
his fon to the field, the mother beheld with¬
out lamentation the mangled carcafe of the
fruit of her own womb, fallen in the caufe
of rebellion and infurrection, and every tie
of private affection and confanguinity was
abandoned to riot, in the excefles of a frantic
zeal, for the exaltation of the fpecies, and
the affertion of rights, entirely incompatible
with the peace of fociety, and the fecurity
of individuals (").

Here was a fyftern founded on the over¬
throw and mockery of ancient prejudices; for
every feeling and affection, if foftered in the
bofom of a private family only, was alfo

denounced as among the prejudices 5, which

» ;

8 See Hclvetius de V Homme, fe£t. u.

- • • " t i i

flood

SERMON II,

Hood in the way of the fyflem to be efta-
blifhed, of univerfal anarchy , for fuch was in
fad: manifeftly the end aimed at by thofe
well acquainted with the plot.

We cannot wonder then, fince man has
been once fo deluded, as to be made to aban¬
don the firfi: principles and feelings of his na¬
ture ; to caft off all regard and affedion for
his offspring, all refped: and reverence for
the authors of his exiftence, all the common
charities and ties of focial life, if it fhould
have been thought as eafy a matter to bring
him to rejed: the facred truths of Revelation
by reprefenting the facred writers to be im-
poftors and fabulifts h. It is not difficult to
deted: an impoftor, who would perfuade us
that he has a commiffion from heaven, by a
careful examination and fcrutiny into his
credentials : but it would be immediately
repugnant to our feelings to exped: to find
an accredited prophet of the Moft High, in a
perfbn we had been previoufly taught to
defpife. If the “ fyjiem of permanence
with which thefe modern Reformers are

h See St, Bafil’s noble refufal to abandon fuch prejudices to
Eunomius. Lib. i, p. 201. edit. Steph,

SERMON II.

fo offended, fhall have taught us to reve¬
rence and refpect the facred writers, this is
no prejudice that can hand in the way of
truth. It is eafy to call Mofes a mythologijl ,
and the Prophets vijionaries ; but nothing
can be more difficult than to prove them
fuch. The Bible is a book which claims to
be judged of in a manner very different from
the way too generally adopted ; not in de¬
tached parts, nor as a common hiftory, but as
a record of events peculiarly connected in
themfelves, and peculiarly diftinguifhed from
any modern events, by every circumftance of
time, place, cullom, religion, and politics.
It profeffes to be a marvellous account ; this
is its very pretenjion: but if allegory is to be
turned into fa& , and fa£l into allegory , at
any man’s pleafure, there is no end to the
confufion it muft occafion. The fruit of the
tree of knowledge has been of late, more
rafhly than ever (ia), refolved into an allegory,
and the real origin of Jin thus reduced to a
fable; while the figurative and typical repre-
fentations, whereby the Prophets were in-
ftrudted in the courfe of future tranfadlions,
have been expofed and ridiculed as 7'eal
events ; and this (in more inftances than

one)

SERMON II.

one) in dire Si contradiction to the Prophets
mvn words (I3).

Prejudices are not always errors, though
a foreign writer of fome eminence has en¬
deavoured to identify them (I4). Prejudices
may be very valuable principles and none
more fo than the prejudices of a public
education ; a circumftance which feems
to have been acknowledged by the re¬
formers themfelves, who have not neglect¬
ed the aid of national and revolutionary
fchools, to give effect to their own boafted
fyftems of Truth and Reafon (I5).

The divine authority of the Old Teftament,
through a weak fpirit of accommodation and
conceffion which has feized upon fome
minds, has lately been as much in danger from
the treachery of friends, as from the affaults
of enemies. We have been admonifhed by a
minijler of ChriJFs Church to lay afide all
“ theological prepojfejjions ,” concerning the
divine legation of Mofes, and injpiration of
the Prophets, for purpofes as dilgraceful
to the fcholar, as the Chriftian ; to accom-i
modate ourfelves to the objections of Freret,

‘ See Notes to Part s&fital Sermon, p. ioa.

Bolingbroke,

7 6 SERMON II.

Bolingbroke, Voltaire, Boulanger, Diderot,
and Paine; fo,fays he, that we need no longer
fear “the erudition ’ of the fir it, “ the fenje ’ of
the fecond, “ the wit” of the third, “ the j'cur -
€C riliiy ” of the fourth, (< the declamations ” of
the fifth, or “ the farcajms ” of the laft ! One
would fcarcely conceive, after fnch a propofal
as this, that it could be to the Old Teftament,
that Chriftianity makes her firft appeal, and
fends us for her chief credentials. No preju¬
dices whatfoever in favour of Mofes and the
Prophets, which we fliall have derived from
our forefathers, or imbibed by education, need
be fufpected of biafling our judgments im¬
properly ; for it fhould be remembered, that
when Chriftianity jirjl made this appeal, fhe
was under perfecution, and it was her future
eftablifhment that depended on the iflue k.
Every prejudice which is now thought to fa¬
vour the Church, and to give an imaginary
importance to the evidence of Scripture,
was then againft her : it was not the appeal
of numerous adherents, connected by the
leaft fhadow of temporal intereft, but it was
the appeal ofChrift crucified! of impaled and

* See Stilling fleet' s Origines Sacra, p. 197. fol. edit.

imprifoned

SERMON II.

imprifoned apoftles ! of a few wandering
outcafts! of dying martyrs! and yet Ihe^rc-
vailed ! Her credentials were examined and
admitted ; the appeal was profecuted, the
prophecies were fearched, and the Church
increafed daily ! And lhall this evidence be
now difputed? Shall we be told, that it is in¬
complete, and mull be perverted to be made
to apply ? The appeal is ffiil open. It is a
curious and interefting enquiry ; but in en¬
tering upon it, let it be thought no prejudice ,
but a meafure both equitable and juft, to ap¬
proach thefe extraordinary records with re¬
verence and refpedt ; remembering that if
the prefent exalted Rate of the Chriftiarx
Church, in thefe realms, has rendered them
fufpicious to her adverfaries, the firft ap¬
peal was made when the Church was in
difgrace ; when the power of the mighty,
and the whilom of the wife, were againft it;
when the evidences referred to wTere only
in the hands of a defpifed and perfecuted
people, while the appeal was propofed to the
whole wmrld (l6); to the might and majefty
of ancient Rome, the learning and philofo-
phy of Greece, to the infatuations of the
Jewq the corruptions of the Pagan, Thefe

were

78 SERMON XL

were the firfl to whom the evidence was of¬
fered ; and I know not what advantage any
can expect to gain by decrying thofe preju¬
dices (I?), and that “ fyjiem of permanence”
which lead us to refped: thefe facred writ¬
ings; except indeed, which is furely the
truth, they would turn us entirely afide from
the consideration of them ; for if the prefent
prejudices of refpedl and veneration were
laid down, and the very worft prejudices of
the ancient pagan world affirmed in their
ftead, even againft thefe Chriftianity has
prevailed, and is entirely competent to do fo
ftill.

We appeal then with renewed confidence
to the canon of Scripture . It is open alike
to believers and unbelievers. We appeal
from Chriftianity to Mofes and the Prophets,
becaufe their evidence, when duly examined
and confidered, is in itfelf miraculous. No
“ fyftem of permanence/’ no prejudices or
prepofleffions concerning the divine authority
of the Hebrew writers, need ftand in the
way of the full difcovery of truth, if the cafe
is to be decided by fair reafoning, regular ar¬
gument, and found criticifm. The common
plea, that, under fuch circumftances, Reafon

(that

SERMON IL

(that is always, Reafon as opp6fed to Reve¬
lation) cannot obtain a hearing, may not
any longer with propriety be urged. Rea¬
fon has furely now had her hearing. I can¬
not conceive that Infidelity or Atheifm could
ever find more to fay, than is to be found in
many productions of thisageofl?eo/o7?,or that
they could ever have a better opportunity of
being heard : a circumftance which the au-
thor of the Ruins of Empires , as free a writer,
and as adventurous a critic, as any the age
can boaft, fo fully acknowledges, as to glory
in the impoffibility of any idea being any
longer effectually fuppreffed, either by the
interpofition of power, or the influence of
authority (lS).

We may furely hope then, that this age of
freedom will have put us in poffefllon of every
objection that can be urged againft Chrifti-
anity, fince, by the confeffion of Infidels
themfelves, notwithstanding the continual
outcry againft prejudices , and the undue in¬
fluence of authority, we find that they have
been able to promulgate their fentiments
without reftraint and without fear. And in¬
deed their ivorhs will prove it. Their works
will amply fhew, that, contrary to the afler-

tion

SERMON II.

lion of the very author whofe complaints I
have had particular occafion to notice in this
difcourfe, few have “ refrained* through fear
“ of perfecution, from the publication of tin-
<c palatable opinions, or felt compelled to pub-
“ lifh fuch opinions in a frigid and cenigma-
“ tical fpirit b”

1 Godwins Pol. Juft. b. iv. c. 6.

NOTES

NOTES TO SERMON II.

May

Page 58. note (1).

in this late contejl have appeared more critical
than informer ones.] It is enough for us to know that
it has appeared fo to thofe who have been mod aCtive
in their oppofition to revealed Religion. The more
confident their expectations have been, the more con-
fpicuous and decifive mud be the triumph of Revelation.
Now whatever becomes of the quedion, whether the
French revolution was owing or not to the confpiracies
of the Free-Mafons and Illuminati , as dated by the Abbe
Barruel and Profeffor Robifon, I can feel no difficulty
in referring to their very curious publications, as well
as to the work, entitled, Memoires pour fervir a I’Hifloire
du Jacobinifme , par M. V Abbe Barruel , in proof or the
critical date in which Chridianity was fuppofed to be
by all the Deidical and Atheidical writers, whofe pro-
feded objeCt was, de faire valoir la Raifon.” (See IVei-
Jhaupt' s Letters under the name of Spartacus.) It is im-
poffible not to fuppofe, from the ftyle and character of
the books circulated and recommended throughout
Europe at that time, that the progrefs of Reafon was ex¬
pected to give the finifhing broke to Chrijlianity , not
merely as an ejlablijhed Religion, but as a revealed Re¬
ligion. The date of things at that time is well deferib-
ed by Profeffor Robifon iji his Account of the German
Union. <e The freedom of enquiry/’ fays the learned
Profedor, “ was terribly abufed ; (for what will the
4 f folly of man not abufe?) and degenerated into a
wanton licentioufnefs of thought, and a rage for fpe-
culation and fcepticifm on every fubjeCt whatever.
The druggie, which was originally between the Ca¬
tholics and Protedants, had changed, during the gra-
dual progrefs of luxury and immorality, into a conted:

G (( between

NOTES TO SERMON II.

cc between Reafon and SuperJHtion. And in tins con left
66 the denomination of SuperJHtion had been giacmally
extended to every doctrine which to he ^ of di-

C( vine Revelation, and Reajon was declared to be for ' cti -
« tain the only way by which the Deity can inform
C( the human mind.” Robifon's Proofs , p. 278. 3d edit.
This perhaps is as corre6l and as unprejudiced an ac¬
count as could be given of the fpirit of the times; and
whatever (hare thefe Infidel writers may have had in
the political difturbances that enfued, there can be no
doubt that their confidence of luccefs againft Cbrtf-
tianity muft have been much increafed by the progrefs
bf the French Revolution, and the overthrow of the
Galilean Church. What advantage they really expell¬
ed to derive from the advancement of knowledge , it
may be difficult to fay ; but many of them feem princi¬
pally to have fixed upon phyjiology in its different
branches, as mod likely to afford the ftrongeft proofs
againft the divine authority of the Bible. Voltaire was
for making phyfes the touchftone of all pretended re¬
velations. Speaking of the Koran, he fays, £( On y voit
« furtout une ignorance profonde de la phyfique la plus
6< fimple et la plus connue — e’eft la la pierre de touche des
(C livres que les fauffes Religions pretendent ecrits par
« la Divinite.” It is not to be queftioned that M.
de Voltaire meant in many of his writings to apply this
touchftone to the holy Scriptures, with a confidence in
its efficacy to reduce them to the ftandard of th e falje
Religions he pretended to have in view. It is fome l'atil-
facSlion furely to be able to refer to fuch advocates for Re¬
velation as Grotius, Bacon, Selden, Puffendorr, Pafcal,
Newton, Boyle, Locke, Addilon, &c. when he adds,
(( le vulgaire , qui Tie voit point ces f antes , les adore.
Nothing can be more difficult than to teach modefty to
a minute philofopher. This age of Reafon has produced
many in our own nation, who have pronounced opi¬
nions, to be not only indefenfible, but pofitively abfurd
and irrational, which were unqueftionably entertained,
and publicly avowed, by the truly learned men whole
names I have juft mentioned : fee for inftance the writ¬
ings of Dr. Toulmin, whom I fhall haveoccafion to no¬
tice elfewhere. Mr. Gibbon has ventured to infinuate,
that the reafon of Jiicb men was Jubdued , rather than fa-

NOTES TO SERMON II.

tisfied. (See chap. xx. of the Decline and Dali of the Homan
Empire.) We have only to refer to their works, to fee
whether they were men likely to have their reafon ra¬
ther fubdued than fatisfied : it would be well for the
reputation of Mr. Gibbon, if even this excufe could be
alleged for his being, as he frequently is, in his works,
tiie advocate of Idolatry. At all events it may be avert¬
ed, that Mr. Gibbon is the firft who has thrown Inch an
imputation upon them, and as it is matter of mere con¬
jecture^ may reafonably be pafted over; though we can¬
not refrain from faying, that no eminence which Mr.
Gibbon has attained as a writer would difpofe us to bowr
to his authority as a judge of Bacon, Newton, Boyle,
&c. and as to his candour and honefty, we {hall have
more to fay of it elfewhere.

To return to the fubjeCt we had quitted. Diderot,
in his Syjleme de la Nature , congratulates himfelf upon
the probable downfal of theology from the advance¬
ment of phyfical knowledge. (c La vraie Dhyfique no pent
“ qu’amener la ruine de la Theologie.” Booki. chap. 7.
But Mr. Paine goes farther, and even pretends that the
point is accomplifhed. “ The fyftem of a plurality of
66 worlds fays he, (e renders the Chriftian fyftem of
“ faith at once little and ridiculous, and fcatters it in the
cc wind like feathers in the air. The two beliefs cannot
cc be held together in the fame mind ; and he who
£C thinks he believes both has thought but little of
“ either.” Mr. Paine purfues this idea at fome length.
I will venture to fay, there is no perfon who thinks he
believes both more thoroughly than the writer of this
note ; and indeed he has thought a good deal about both ,
notwithstanding what Mr. Paine ventures to aftert.
And had the above paffage of Mr. Paine s occurred to
him when he published a book exprefsly upon the fub-
je£t, (A. D. 1801.) he would have been happy to have
referred to it, as the beft explanation of his intentions,
which were certainly in one inftanc omijlaken. [See Cri¬
tical Review of the work, entitled, Eh ©so;, El; M earn;;.]
The intention of the work was no other than to {hew,
that the holy Scriptures did not contradict the notion of a
plurality of worlds. Upon this fubjett of the plurality of
worlds , I (hall beg leave to add fome references I had not
an opportunity of making in the book I have juft no-

a 2 ’ ticed.

NOTES TO SERMON If.

ticed, but which are exceedingly applicable, and would
in themfelves be fufficient anfwers to the dogmatical
aflertion of Mr. Paine. See Sherlock's Xlth Difcourfe ,
yol. i. p. 320. Clarke's Evidences of Natural and Re¬
vealed Religion, pp. 354, 355. 8th edit. Introduction to
Dr. Thomas Burnet's book de Tide et Officiis Chriftiano -
rum (the extract from the preface found among his pa¬
pers). Gijborne' s Walks in a For eft, Walk III. New
Theory of Redemption, publifhed 1789. vol. ii. p. 79. &c.
and Fuller on Deifm, or The Gofpel its own Witnefs, Part
II. chap. v.

Page 58. note (2).

Upon all the fubje&s here enumerated, it is almoft
fufficient to refer to Leland's View of Deiftical Writers ,
5th edition, with an Appendix by Profeffior Brown, on
the prefent Times , 1798. I ffiall however fubjoin the fol¬
lowing notices of fome French works, which, I mud
confefs, I have had myfelfno opportunity of examining.
66 M. Bergier a fait pour la France ce que Leland avoit
“ fait pour les trois Royaumes : ii a frappe k grands
“ coups fur le Didionnaire philofophique ', la Philofophie de
<( I'Hftoire; I'Examen important ; le Sermon des Cin -
<c quant e ; le Chriftianifme devoile, &c. Perfonne jufqu’&-
“ prefent n’a refute M. Bergier.” And again, “ M.
“ Campbell devoile les fophifmes de Hume. M. le
(e Profeffieur Caftillon fit plus; apres avoir traduit et
66 commente M. Campbell, il reprit en bloc tous fes ar-
“ gumens ; il en fit, pour ainfi dire, une chaine ferree,
(C il preffa, il fomma M. Hume de la brifer, ou de fe
fs rendre. M. Hume a garde un profond filence.”

Page 60. note (3).

Nothing is more common than the revival of old ob¬
jections, with a view to the very probable advantage of
their appearing new to the ignorant ; as Cicero fays in
his Orator, c. 3. ec Ego autem et me faepe nova videri
“ dicere intelligo, cum pervetera dicam, fed inaudita
6: plerifque.” It is upon the flrength of an u inaudita

plerifque,” that fo many obfolete objections are con¬
tinually revived. The learned Profeffor Jenkin re¬
marks, and with much propriety, though it may not
perhaps be univerfally admitted, that it appears from
the leveral apologies of the Chriftian Fathers, ir vindi-
^ - cation

NOTES TO SERMON II.

cation of our Religion, that all was at the very firft al¬
leged againft it, which can with any pretence or colour
be objeCted. Vol. ii. 403. Both Eufebius and Jerome
declare of Origen’s book againft Celfus, that all objec¬
tions that ever were, or ever may be, made to Chrifti-
anity, will find an anfwer in it : fee the former, Adverf.
Hieroclem ; and the latter, Epijl. ad Mag . Orat. Roman.
See alfo Leng's Boyles Lectures, Serm. V. 127* arid
the Abbe Iioutteville’s excellent Difcourfe . on the
writers for and againft Chriftianity, in which is an ad¬
mirable account of all the apologetical works, as well as
of the writings they were intended to confute ; and he
remarks, that not one of the adverfaries of Chriftianity
ever returned to the charge. [See his account of Eufe¬
bius.] I muft again refer to Dr. Leland's View ofDeiJli-
cal Writers , for an account of the feveral anfwers and
replies that have been made to the numberlefs objec¬
tions advanced againft Chriftianity, and which, no doubt,
will be continually repeated. There is not one of
Paine’s objections in his Age of Reafon , that has not
been refuted long ago; fome of them even by Jofe-
phus in his book againft Apion. I (hall make no fcru-
ple of inferting the following extraCt from Mr. Lacking-
ton s Conf eff orts, becaufe 1 have no doubt but the cafe
occurs continually; and thofe who are not aware of the
deception may derive advantage from the hint given
them. “ I alfo procured a Bible interleaved with blank
“ paper, and transcribed many of the remarks and ob¬
jections of Infidel writers to various texts ; and oppo-
« fite to fome texts I even wrote my own objections.
“ Having had fuch a long acquaintance with the au-
« thors in favour of freeth inking, I am able to remark,
“ that Thomas Paine, and other modern Infidels, in-
« ftead of consulting the Bible, have copied the objec-
« tions to it, from thofe authors that preceded them,
“ which objections have been ably anfwered over and
« over again, by men of deep learning and great abili-
ty. Thofe anfwers I, like other freethinkers, ne-
« gleCted to read, until a few years fince. Now I have
“ read them, I am afhamed of having been fo eafily
« duped, and cheated out of my Chriftianity ” Letter
II. publiftied 1804.

Page

G 3

NOTES TO SERMON II.

Page 64. note (4)-

In the Divine Legation of Mofes, vol.iii. p. 420. there
is an excellent remark on the hazard the Jewifh Legif-
lator ran in pretending to eftablifli the belief of a theo¬
cracy, if his pretenfions had been unfounded ; for this
could not be eftablifhed without pretending alfo to an
extraordinary and particular Providence : upon which
Moles never makes any fcruple to infift, by way of giv¬
ing a proper fandtion to his laws; appealing even to his
enemies to judge. cf Their rock is not as our rock, even
<c our enemies themfelves being judges/’ Deut. xxxi.
32.

There is nothing that has been more mifreprefented
than the Jewifh theocracy. Lord Shaftefbury certain¬
ly means to allude to it, where he enumerates among
the attributes which it is hazardous to aferibe to the
Deity, that of being u favourable to a few though for
“ flight caufes, and cruel to the reft.” It is in this
light that all Deifts willperjijl in regarding it, though if
the very books which record this preference are true,
no fuch objedhion can lie againft them ; for what is it
that they exprefsly tell us, but that God did not feledf
the Ifraelites for their u own fakes f but “ for his own
u holy name fake , which had been profaned among the
cc heathen P” Ezekiel xxxvi. 22,23. lee alfo Deuteronomy
ix. which is ftrong to the purpofe. Nor need any other
conftrudfion be put on the calling of Abraham, in which
the whole originated : for though this may leem more
perfonal and particular, yet there were many moral
caufes leading thereto, and it was undoubtedly the ef-
fedt of God’s forefight, as is plain from Gen. xviii. 39.
If God forefaw his future righteoufnefs and eminent
piety, could he not forefee alio the iniquity of thole na¬
tions whom his pofterity were to difpofl'efs ? could he
not forefee all the abominations which it became fo ne-
ceftary afterwards to caution the Ifraelites againft ? Le¬
viticus xviii. xix. xx. We do not pretend to enter into
the queftion of God’s forelight upon this occafion; the
difficulties attending it have long been acknowledged :
but all thefe difficulties may be faid to arife, not from
the uncertainty either of man's free-will or God’s fore¬
knowledge , but from the impojfihility of denying either :

there

NOTES ON SERMON II.

there is no foundation therefore whatever for our
doubting of God’s forefight in this particular; and the
author of the Uiftory of Ancient Europe (Dr. Ruffel)
might have been fpared the (hock, that his feelings teem
to have fuftained in refleding on the promife of a de-
firable country having been made to Abraham and his
feed (i before the inhabitants had become idolaters , and a
<f prophetic curfe denounced again ft them, before they

(e were a people.” See p. 130.

There is no doubt that before the fentence was put in
execution they not only were become idolaters, but the
moft execrable of all idolaters, as may be collected
from the feveral chapters of the book of Leviticus al¬
ready referred to, and the commentators upon thofe
chapters ; Patrick efpecially. The condua^ of the II-
raelites themfelves God particularly exprefies his fore¬
knowledge of, Deut. xxxi. 31. “ For I know their
“ imagination, which they go about, even now before 1
i( have brought them into the land which I Jwaie:
which, if Dr. Ruflell chofe to refer to the Bible at all,
fhould have had its proper weight with him. And I
cannot help adding from the fame authority, (and the
Bible has at leaft the claim that all other books have, to
be allowed to fpeak for itfelf,) that the evidence of
God’s foreknowledge was a matter of peculiar import¬
ance at thofe times, as we may fee by the intimation
given us of the general defign of prophecy, Rajah
xlviii. 5. “ I have even from the beginning declared it
“ to thee ; before it came to pafs I ihewed it to thee :
“ left thou fbouldeftfay , Mine idol hath done them, and
^ xny graven image , and my molten image hath com—

manded them.”

As to God’s fele£lion of the Ifraelites, and how
much it has fince been turned againft the Deifts, by
their prefen t ftate of depreffion and difperfion, (and this
in fulfilment of the ancient prophecies,) fee Lefties Me¬
thod with the Jews , nth fol. edition of his works.

vol . i. pp. 7L 72. ’ <? 1 *

Though I have already treated pretty largely of this

fubje£t in a note to my firft Difcourfe ; yet, as there is
no objection in regard to which Deifts are more confi¬
dent in their attacks upon the Jewifh difpenfation, I

(hall hope to be excufed for offering fome further re-

G 4 marks

NOTES ON SERMON II.

marks in this place ; with references to a few of the
authors who have written mod perfpicuoufly upon the
lubjedl, and are acceffible to the generality of readers.

It is rafh in man to attempt to decide what may be
cruel, or not fo, as a difpenfation proceeding from God.
In this mixed fcene of things there are many evils,
which cannot be corrected without the facrifice of
much prefent eafe and prefent happinefs. It is always
fufficient for us, in palling a judgment upon fuch e-
vents, to be able to diftinguifh what will be the actual
confequences. Let us fuppole one man to lofe a limb
by violence, and through the malice and revenge of an
inveterate enemy ; and another by the hand ofaikil-
ful pra&itioner, capable of forefeeing that the lols of
his limb was neceflary to the prefervation of the reft of
the body, and of life itfelf: could we helitate to de¬
cide, that in the firft inftance there would be much to
blame; in the laft, much to be even admired and com¬
mended ? Shall not the forelight of the praaitioner
render bis an aa of kindnefs and benevolence ? But as
this may not be thought entirely to meet the cafe, let
us fuppofe a man to be forewarned of his death, unlefs
he fbould fubmit to the lofs of a limb ; would his
death, upon his neglect of this notice, be imputable to
him who gave him the advice ? How the Ifraelites
were dealt with in this refpedt, fee 2 Kings xvii. and
Patrick on the chapter. See alfo the exa6t cafe, Eze¬
kiel iii. 18, 19. ib. xxxiii. 1—9. Confult alfo Origen
co?itr. Celf. b. iv. p. 21 1. and b. vi. p. 314. edit. Can-

tab. anci c. xvii. of the Pbilocalia in the fame edition,
p. 104.

I am noy pretending to refemble God’s ways to our
ways, or his thoughts to our thoughts: but as it is
nioft unqueftionable, that many evil occurrences take
place in the world, which the profpedt of good to en-
iue reconciles to our feelings, fo we may confidently
believe, a fortiori , that where there is a conftant and
unerring lorefight of confequences, many events, ac¬
companied with the moft terrifying efte&s to our un-
derftandings, may not be ultimately bad ; and therefore
it cannot be poffible lor us to lay what may be the
real nature of any events brought to pafs through the
exprefs will of God. It was apparently bad for Jofeph

NOTES ON SERMON 11. $9

to have fallen under the difpleafure of his brethren,
and to have been fold to the Ifhmaelites : but Jofeph
lived long enough to draw a different conclufion, for
wifely did he comfort his repenting brethren ; “As for
“ you, ye thought evil againft me ; but God meant it
“ unto good, to bring it to pafs, as it is this day, to
“ Jave much people alive.” Gen. 1. 20.

It is generally granted, that whatever knowledge the
Ifraelites might have had of a future (late, fuch a belief
was not fo prevalent, nor by any means fo clear, before,
as fince the times ol the Gofpel. What we know now
of another life to come, was in a great meafure wanting
in thofe times. The profperity of a hardened finner
therefore is not likely now to do fuch mifchief in the
world, becaufe we well, know that there is a time to
come, when God’s providence will be amply vindi¬
cated ; but this was not the cafe in the times of which
the Bible gives an account. I have already taken no¬
tice, not only that the idolatrous nations of old were
corrupt in their manners beyond all that we can pofii-
bly conceive, in our prefent ftate of refinement and cL
vilization, but that their whole fyftem of religion (and
policy even) tended to a defiance of the fupreme God.
“ Who is the Lord,” (the God of Ifrael,) fays Pharaoh,
“ that I fhould obey his voice?” Exod. v. 2. This is
the clue to the circumflances of thofe times ; and if we
follow up the hiflory, we-fhall find, I think, that there is
fcarcely one incident, which this matter of defiance yv\\\
not ierve to explain. The grofs. extravagancies of ido¬
latry, the cruel and licentious rites attached to it, are
irrefragably confirmed by every teftimony of profane as
well as facred hiftory : and if any men had been bold
and virtuous enough to flem the torrent of iniquity,
and affert the infulted majefty of the true God, would
not Reafon have been confounded, if they had been
entirely abandoned, and no fupport afforded them on fo
great and glorious an occafion ? We have a right to
afk fuch queflions in an age of Reafon ; an age, which
has produced one very bold Philofopher ; fo bold as to
argue againft the very exiftence of God, from the pre¬
fent refinance that is made to him in the daily commijjion
of fin of all forts ; and this is adduced in argument
againft Dr. Clarke’s evidences of God’s attributes ; par¬
ticularly

NOTES ON SERMON II.

ticularly ol his infinite power. See Diderot’s Syjieme He
la Nature . Nay, he goes fo far as to reft all his argu¬
ments againft the being and providence of God, upon
the very fa£t of his being fuffered to exijl to publifti fuch
a work.

We know from Chriftianity how fuch a&s of defiance
may have their due reward in time to come, and the
world in general is at all events too enlightened to be
leduced into, atheifm by fuch attempts. But this was
not the cafe in times paft. Profperity and adverfity, or
rather, profperous and adverfe fuccefs in their wars and
conflicts, were the only criterions of men's faith. What¬
ever ohjed they chofe to worfhip was acknowledged, in
proportion to the temporary fuccefs that attended their
feveral undertakings. This was their common mode
of reafoning, as may be colle&ed from every hiftory we
poflefs of thole remote times. The exprefs interference
of God therefore was neceffary to vindicate his fupre-
macy and providence, at fuch times, upon the Deift’s,
or rather the Atheift’s own principles ; and indeed Di¬
derot leaves us no alternative between the acknow¬
ledgment, of God’s interference on occafions, and the
total denial ol his providential government of the
world.

The next queftion then is, How is this interference
defcribed to have happened ? Often certainly with molt
dreadful difplays of God’s power in punilhing; but
might there not be mercy in this very feverity P Severity
is certainly mercy where nothing lefs will be effe6tuai
to the fuppreffion of fuch iniquities and abominations,
as tend to corrupt and deprave the whole of human
nature.

Mr. Gibbon, fpeaking of Aurelian’s punifhments,

[ Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. ii. 1 8.] fays,
“ a. few fuch examples imprefled a falutary confterna-
“ tion. His punifhments were terrible, but then he
“ had feldom occafion to punifti more than once the
“ fame offence." Here then the principle is fully ad¬
mitted as falutary in its confequences ; and that this
was the object to be obtained by the Jewifh laws is
evident from Deut. xiii. where, as a reafon for the fe¬
verity of the punilhment denounced againft idolaters,
it is exprefsly laid, « And all Ifrael fliall hear and fear ,

66 and

NOTES ON SERMON II.

and do no move any fuch wickednefs as tliis is among
« you.” So again, fpeaking of the Canaanites, the
Scripture faith, 6i He gave the kingdoms ot Canaan to
be an heritage unto his people. Why ? That all the
nations of the world might know that the hand of the
Lord is mighty, and that they might fear the Lord
continually : <c and they joined themfelves unto Baal-
« Peor, and provoked him with their inventions ; fo
“ the plague was great among them. Then, being
“ chaffed , they turned to their God” Such was the
objedt of the calamities that were permitted to befal
them, and i'uch, no doubt, the means neceffary to re¬
train and to convert them ; or at leaft to prevent the
contagion fpreading ; which nothing but the manifelt
correction of idolatry could accomplilh, without in¬
trenching too much on the freedom of the human
mind. Much to the fame purpofe may be feen in the third
part of Dr. Edwards’s Preservative againjl Socinianifm ;
Jenkins Reajonablenejs of Chrifhanity ; (Part II. chap. 2.)
Burthogge on the Divine Goodnefs ; Nicbolls’s Conferences^ ;
Leland’s Anfwer to Tindal ; Owens Sermons at Boyle’s
Lectures ; Bryant on the Authenticity of the Scriptures ;
and Waif oil's Apology for the Bible. In a fmall work
of M. Petitpierre of Neufchatel on the Divine Goodnejs ,
there are fome good arguments to prove feverity ' to be
a main branch thereof. See alfo Robert Robinfon s Ser¬
mons, Difcourfe on early Piety , and Eindfey on Divine
Government . Voltaire, that he may have an opportu¬
nity of imputing to the Jews the word motives that he
could, oblervesf that in order to be convinced that the
idolatry of the neighbouring nations was not the true
caufe of their hatred, we need only conlult their hifto-
ry, where we (hall lee that they themfelves. were fre¬
quently idolaters. Nobody denies this ; it. is what we
would particularly inlift on : their difpofttion towards
idolatry was the precile occafion of God s feparating
them from their neighbours with lo much ftrictnefs
and feverity ; not to encourage their hatred of them,
but to keep them from the evil communication of their
corrupt notions and practices. “ After the doings of
ic the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, Ihall ye not do;
“ and after the doing of the land of Canaan, whither

“ I bring you, Ihall ye not do : neither (hall ye walk in

66 their

NOTES TO SERMON II.

9 2

Ci their ordinances. Ye (hall do my judgments, and
f( keep mine ordinances to walk therein. I am the
*£ 'Lord your God” Levit. xviii. 3, 4. See alfo Levit.
xx. 26. And is it not clearly fhevvn in the hifiory of the
Bible, that the Ifraelites were punifhed for every in-
ftance of apofiafy ? Idolatry was carefully pointed out
to them as the immediate objedt of their enmity, whe¬
ther they chofe to make it fuch or no ; and this they
had many opportunities of proving; whenever it turned
out not to be the object of their defigns, they were
themfelves checked and punifhed.

But let us confider. laftly, the character and conduct
of the Prophets , for they were the principal miniflers of
God’s difpenfations. How then are they reprefented
as interfering? By expofing in the fight of the infidel
the error of his way, and upholding the righteous be¬
liever by the rnoft comfortable encouragements and
captivating promiles. Had they made no pretenfions
to a commiffion from Heaven, we fhould almoft have
expected a vifible difplay of God’s providence in their
favour, fo commendable was their zeal, fo important to
the whole world the objedl and the courfe of their pro¬
ceedings. See this amply proved in Law’s Theory of
Religion, Difc. II. where are to be found abundance of
ufeful references. See alfo Lawman’s Hiffertation on the
civil Government of the Hebrews .

I would however willingly be contented to refer to
the book of Jeremiah alone, illuftrated by Dean Pri-
deaux’s account of thole times, in his Connection of
the Old and New Tef aments , to fatisfy any reafonable
and well-difpofed mind, of the goodnefs of Providence,
as dilplayed in the million and interpofition of the an¬
cient Prophets. I would only with the whole cafe to
be confidered, and then let it be faid, whether in any
infiance the wicked were punifned without fufficient
warning; whether all previous pains were not taken
hi. the cafe of the idolaters, to convert them to the true
faith, (Jeremiah li. 8, 9.) in the cafe of the Ifraelites,
topreferve them in obedience ; (fee Jeremiah, ch. vii.)

I have offered but two references in proof ; but many
more might be adduced. It is befides too often over¬
looked, that the Ifraelites were particularly enjoined to
offer peace to the Canaanites, on condition that they. re¬
nounced

NOTES TO SERMON II.

nounced their falfe Deities, and acknowledged Jehovah
for their only God. See Deut. xx. io. Nor was war to
be commenced, till fucb terms had been rejected. See a
note to Dr. Henry Owen's 12 tb Sermon at Boyle's Lec¬
ture, and Jenkin's Reafonablenefs of the Chriftian Religion,
Part II. ch. ii. It, is alfo to be obferved, that God’s
conduCt towards the Ilraelites was generally known to
the Gentile nations, and this alone ought to have ope¬
rated as a warning. See Numbers xiv. 14? I5* Deut. in
23. Jofhua ii. 10. 1 Sam. iv. 10. vi. 6.

Page 6$. note (5) .

They prophefied of many fa Sis ; many connected fa&s :
Have any fucb taken place .<?] See the feveral diftinCt
prophecies relating to our Saviour enumerated and
brought together in the Penfees de Pafcal, xv. Leflie's
Method with the Jews, xii. and his Truth of Chrijlianity
dcmonflrated, p. 140. fol. edit, of his works. Ihey are
well fummed up in Juftin Martyr's Dialogue with Try-
pho, and his Apology to Antoninus, and by others of the
apologetical Fathers. But I (hall add the following more
acceflible references. Jenkin s Reafonablenefs and Cer¬
tainty of the Chriftian Religion, Part II. ch. v. and ch. xii.
Bryant on the Authenticity of the Scriptures. Jamiefon on
the Ufe of Sacred Hi/lory, vol. i. part J. §.2. and Puller's
Gofpel its own JVitnefs , Part II. ch. 5.

Such an accumulation of prophecies, diftinCtly ful¬
filled, might furely have inclined Rouffeau to trull a lit¬
tle to their evidence. He requires three things to make
a prophecy credible, the conjunction of which he con¬
ceives impojjihle . Firft, that we fhould be witneffes to
the prophecy; fecondly, to the accomplifhment of it
alfo ; and thirdly, that it fhould admit of demonjlration ,
that the prophecy and event could not have coincided
by any accidental circumftances. See his Emile, tom.
iii. 103.

Could Rouffeau imagine a prophecy more credible, if
accomplifhed in the very lifetime of the prophet, than
fix or feven hundred years after his death ? Could he
think that he did juftice to the evidence of prophecy,
by refting its validity on one individual inftance of a
prediction verified by the event? That one prophecy
might be accidentally verified is no argument one way

94 NOTES TO SERMON II.

or the other. This is what none would deny : but one
prophecy may, by the addition of circumjlantial marks ,
be multiplied into many. That the Jews fhould be
difperfed might have been accidentally fulfilled ; but
that they fhould be fcattered and lifted among the na¬
tions, without head or government, be a by -word and
a reproach, and that this difperfion fhould take place at
a time and after a manner marked and fpecified by the
c eared notices, this muft not be called one prophecy
though it relates to one event. See Hurd on Prophecy ,

ifrm* 1V* P* 11 1* and Prideaux on Daniel 's Prophecy , in
the id vol. of his Connexion &c. See alfo Jortin s Dif-
courfes on the Truth of the Chrijlian Religion, p. 177. note.
ad edit. >

. Stud* prophecies as thefe are not individual predic¬
tions in any fenfe of the word, and therefore fuch a
prophecy as Roulfeau would difpute the truth of, any
body elfe would alfo. He totally palfes over the evi¬
dence we depend upon ; namely, an accumulation of
many fuccejjive prophecies, uttered by many different
prophets, “ at f’undry times, and in divers manners, ”
moll circumftantially fulfilled, though marked by va¬
rious defignations of time, place, and perfons.

Mr. Paine, in the firfl part of his Age of Rea fon, has
a curious way of getting rid of the proof from prophe¬
cy * tells us, in his great wifdom, that we miflake

the meaning of the name ; that the Jewifli Prophets
were not altogether the foretellers of future events, or
rather, that they were merely “poets, and therefore, **
lays he, u it is altogether unneceffary to offer any ob-
fermions upon what thofe men ,ftyled Prophets , have
“ written. The axe goes at once to the root, by fhew-
“ mg that the original meaning of the word has been
miltaken. -According to this very wife argument,
no poet. could be a prophet, no predi&ion could be ex-
preffcd in poetical numbers. We are happy to refleft
that Bifhop Lowth thought otherwife, and that he was
quite as competent as Mr. Paine to judge of the ori¬
ginal meaning of the term ufed for a prophet.

It is fhockitig to fee fuch attempts made to deceive
the unlearned, and they cannot be too often pointed
out, though otherwife quite beneath our notice. See
Mr. Paine well expofed for his attack upon the ancient

pro-

NOTES TO SERMON II.

prophecies, in Fuller s Gofpel its own Witnefs , to which
I have often had occafion to refer, and which is an ex¬
cellent antidote to the poifon of modern Deifm.

Page 66. note ( 6 ) .

See Dr. Geddes’s Introduction to his Verfon of the
Pentateuch , where is the following extraordinary paf-
fage : “ On the whole then, I think it may be laid down
<£ as an axiom, that the bulk of Chriftians, whether
“ Papifts or Proteftants, cannot be faid to have a ratio-
“ nal faith, becaufe their motives of credibility are not
“ rational motives, but the pofitive afiertions of an af-
cc fumed authority, which they have never difculfed,
“ or durft not queftion : their religion is the fruit of
iC unenlightened credulity. A very J'mall number of cu-
rious and learned men only have thoroughly exa-
“ mined the motives of their religious belief, in any
(C communion ; and it will be found, I prefume, that
“ the more curious and learned they were, the lefs
cc they generally believed. Hence perhaps the old
“ adage, Ignorance is the mother of Devotion .” pp. 5, 6.
Mr. Gibbon had no better excufe to make for Newton,
Boyle, &c. being believers, than that their reafon was
rather fubdued than fatisfied. He was willing to ac¬
knowledge that other wife they were great men , as ge¬
nerally reputed to be. But Dr. Geddes prefumes far¬
ther. Notwithftanding the great reputation of the be¬
lievers alluded to, for learning and ufeful curiofity , he
would infinuate, that infidelity could be the only proof
of either ; and propofes a criterion, which would leave
Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Locke, and numberlefs others
that might be mentioned, to take their place in the
lowed rank of plebeian philofophers . If Ignorance is the
only parent of Devotion , we could little have expeCled it
to lpring up in fuch foils ; ftill lefs could we have fup-
pofed, that Devotion would have furnifiied many critics
fully capable of dete&ing the errors, into which the
learned tranflator himfelf had fallen. See the Reviews
in general of Dr. Geddes’s work; particularly the Bri-
tijh Critic ; Profejfor Findlay on the InJpiration of the
Jewifh Scriptures ; and fome very brief but excellent
remarks on Dr. Geddes’s Prefaces , by the Rev. John
Earle. London, 1799.

Page

NOTES TO SERMON II.

Page 67. note (7).

See Lind fey's LLijlorical Uiezu of the State of the Uni¬
tarian Doctrine , &c. London, 1783. It is not the Lec¬
ture-founded by Mr. Bampton only, but Lady Moyer’s
Lecture in the metropolis, and “ fome appointments of
“ the like fort among Diffenters,” that Mr. Lindfey
objects to ; and, to take his own account of matters,
his objections all proceed from a jealoufy of having the
Trinitarian or Athanafian doCtrine (as he conftantly
terms it) fo generally inculcated. Rut had any perfon
founded a Lecture for Unitarian teachers, we may rea-
fonably conclude Mr. L. would have had no fuch ob¬
jections ; for in his preface he exprefsly condemns the
Univerfities for difcouraging the propagators of fuch
doCtrines. InftruCtors,” fays he, “ not of one or two
£e individuals only, but of fucceffive numbers, in a long
f: feries, of ingenuous youth ; whofe wide difperfion
u and various future diftinCtion might effectually con-

tribute to fpread light and truth through the world.”
Pref. p. xxiv. It is evident then that Mr. Lindfey
thinks it commendable to affifl in the propagation of
light and truth 5 we have only therefore to claim for
Mr. Bampton and Lady Moyer the common right of
being allowed to judge what is light and truth , and
their care to propagate them cannot but be highly com¬
mendable upon Mr. Lindfey’s own principles.

Page 68. note (8).

See Godwin's Political Jujlice , chapter on National
Education. I apprehend Mr. Godwin could never
mean, that what has been difcovered of old fhould not
be inculcated and difful'ed, merely becaufe it was difco¬
vered of old. He could only mean then, that the dif-
covery of new things ought to be more promoted in
the Univerfities, and that too great regard is at pre¬
lent (hewn to ancient lyftems. To prove this point, it
would be incumbent on Mr. Godwin to tell us what
branches of knowledge he thinks capable of improve¬
ment, and that due affiftance is not provided in the
Univerfities for facilitating fuch improvements. Now
to fpeak of Oxford more particularly, public lectures
are there read in Anatomy , (as important a Itudy, and

where

NOTES TO SERMON IT.

where difcoveries might be as valuable, as in any fci-
ence whatfoever). There are public leCtures in Botany ,
Cbemijlry, Mineralogy , AJlronomy , and Natural Bbilojo-
pby. And I will venture to fay, that every one of
thefe Lectures is fo conducted, as not only amply to
teach what bas been difcovered , but to encourage and
affift every ingenious and attentive ftudent in profecut-
ing his own ftudies, with a view to the further im¬
provement and advancement of the feveral fciences.

So far from any of thefe fciences being taught on a
“ Jyftem °f permanence” any perfon who will take the
pains to enquire may eafily fatisfy himfelf, that they
are all taught and inculcated as fully upon Mr. God¬
win’s own favourite fyftem of perfedlibility , as he him¬
felf could in reafon delire. And thefe are all fciences,
which we admit are to a certain degree improveable.

Rut Mr. Godwin is not a teacher of any of tbefe fci¬
ences, nor much interefted, probably, in tbeir improve¬
ment. He is a teacher of Political Jujlice , of Natural
Religion , and Moral Bbilofopby : and thefe; be thinks
improveable, as fully as we think the others to be. Po¬
litical Jullice we leave to him to advance as much as
ever his talents will enable him : we believe it to be
well underftood by our legiflators in general ; and if
not advanced to the highelt degree of perfection, we
are certain that our molt glorious conftitation has left
the door open for any truly practicable improvements,
and that any that are really fuch Hand a fair chance of
being adopted.

As to Natural Religion and Moral Bbilofopby , we mult
beg leave to demur : thefe we look upon as both of
them interwoven with the general doCtrines of Chrif-
tianity ; and Chriftianity we believe to be of God.
Therefore we look to no improvements in thefe two
branches of knowledge, [fee Blair s Baft Sermon , 1804.
p. 38. 3d edit.] except fuch as may be entirely practi¬
cal. We teach and inculcate tbefe upon u a footing of
“ permanence but fo far from precluding enquiry into
the principles of either, that every branch of know¬
ledge, requifite to the due underftanding of every quef-
tion connected with them, is particularly taught and
particularly infilled on, as the fitted: qualification for
academical honours and academical degrees. Mr, God-

h ' win

NOTES TO SERMON II.

win may depend upon it, that the courfe of ftudies re¬
commended and adopted in the Univerfity at prefent,
is capable of rendering any man a fit judge of his com-
pofitions, however fcientific; and that if they are not
received there with the fervour of admiration Mr. G.
had been led to expert, it is becaufe, upon examination,
they have not been thought deferving of it.

Mr. Godwin has talents ; his books have acquired a
name, and confiderable reputation, and have no doubt
been as much read at Oxford as in any other city of
the world ; and perhaps more read there than any
where, if we except Cambridge, and the Irifii and
Scotch Univerfities ; in none of which we believe any
work of fuch notoriety and upon fuch a fubjedl would
(land a chance of being overlooked.

Mr. Godwin will, no doubt, refort to the favourite
plea of prejudice, which we fhall have to fpeak of elfe-
where ; for the prefent we quit this fubje&with a molt
earneft hope, that none of Mr. Godwin’s infinuations
will lead the world in general to fuppofe, that national
education is not as well underflood in the feveral Uni¬
verfities of the King’s dominions, as by the ingenious,
but too often dogmatical and miftaken, author of Poli¬
tical Jujlice , &c. &c.

Page 70. note 9.

Dr. Geddes’s beft hope of introducing his free in¬
terpretation of the Bible to public notice is, that it
may find readers difpofed “ to weigh his arguments in
c( the fcale of reafon , devoid of theological prepoffefjions
and the Do£tor is not backward to explain what theolo¬
gical 'prepoJJ'eJJions he wiflies removed out of his way ;
fuch, in fhort, as lead us to regard the facred writers of
the Old Teftament as any thing better than the iC rude
(e unpoliffed” propagators of u popular traditions and
cc old fongs Preface, p. iii. He would have us look
upon “ the Hebrew Scriptures” as “ erroneous, incon-
“ fiftent, and abfurd;” p. xi. as “ inexplicable, and
“ fometimes ridiculous.” p. xiii. Thefe are Dr. Ged¬
des’s preparatives . The preparative of “ indifference ”
I conceive to be recommended by Dr. Priellley and
Mr. Belfham, in the following paflages. Speaking of
the converts to his oiun way of thinking, the former

NOTES TO SERMON II. 99

fays, “It cannot be denied, that many of thofe who
judge fo truly concerning particular tenets in icligion,
£< have attained to that cool unbiased temper of mind
<( in conjequence of becoming more indiffei ent to religion,
(e in general , and to all the modes and dotfiines of it.
And this indifference to all religion he conliders as
(e favourable to a diflinguifhing between truth and
£t falfehood.” Difcourfes on various Subjects, p. 65. The
latter, (Mr. Belfham,) in his Sermon on the Importance
of Truth, affirms, that “ men who are the moft mdiffe-
<c rent to the practice of religion, and whofe minds
<c therefore are lead attached to any fet of jprinciples,
“ will ever be the firft to fee the abfurdity of a popular
“ fuperftition, and to embrace a rational fyjlem of faith T
As thefe paffages have been felefted before in proof
of what they are here applied to atteft, and as upon that
occafion complaint was made, that the authors had
been mifreprefented, I mud beg leave to refer to the
IVth Letter of the fecond edition of Mr. Fuller’s Com -
parifon of the Calviniflic and Sociman Syfems9 where the
point is difeuffed at length.

Page 71. note (to).

Rouffeau (Emile, tom. iii. X15O a^s> why, £f if a
“ ChriJlian diould be thought to do well by following
the faith and profeffion of his fathers, the fame fhould
<f not be thought of the Turk P” We do not difpute
the inference he would draw 5 but in endeavouring to
convert a Turk, we would maintain, that it is not a right
method to begin with ridiculing Mahomet,, and laugh¬
ing at the credulity of his forefathers. Let the Turk
refpedt Mahomet as a prophet, and the Koran as true,
till the former is clearly fhewn not to have been a pro¬
phet, and the latter is convicted of talfehood and error.

M. Rouffeau defies u tous les intolerans du monde de
i( repondre a cela rien qui contente un homme fenfe.
We join with him, and claim no more for ourfelyes
than what he would claim for the Turk . that preju¬
dices, which are really groundlefs and hurtful, (hould
be removed, not by clamour, mockery, and contempt^
but by fober reafon and irrefiftible arguments.

Page

11 %

100

NOTES TO SERMON II.

Page 72. note (il).

In the Jacobin club at Paris, the members were fvvorn
to denounce to the club every man who fhould oppofe
its decrees , whether friend or relation, father, mother,
filler, or brother.

Page 74. note (12).

The fruit of the tree of knowledge has been of late ,
more rafhly than ever , refolved into an allegory .] Thq
clofe connection to be traced between the redemption
and the fall of man, had long ago determined all fin-
cere Chriftians to refill every attempt to allegorize this
moll important hifiory ; not to fupport their own pri¬
vate opinions and particular tenets, but for a reafon
that no true Chriltian could be fufpeCted of difregard-
ing ; namely, the folemn references made to it as to a
true hillory by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 1 Tim. ii. 13, 14.
and by our bleflfed Lord and Saviour himfelf, Matth.
xix. 4, 5. But according to Dr. Teller of Berlin, and
other foreign expofitors, thefe references were only to
mere (e fragments of fome unknown writer u Egyp-
“ tian or. Chaldean fables ” According to Dr. Geddes,
only to 6( an ingenious piece of ancient mythology ; ”
6 ( popular traditions , and old Jongs !” See Note 1.

Page 75. note (13).

Have been expofed and ridiculed as real events , 8ec.] M.
de Voltaire pretends to believe, that Ezekiel eat the roll
of parchment in reality , which the Prophet exprefsly
aflerts to have been a mere vifion. See Lettres de quelques
Juifs Portugais, See. where is much more to the fame
purpofe. He even, through a wanton defire of expofing
the Jews, affirms boldly, that they were Anthropophagi ,
and cites to this purpofe Ezekiel xxxix. 17, 18 ; from
which pafifage it is impoffible not to be able to colledt
the exprefs views of the Prophet, which had no rela¬
tion whatever to men , but to the Jowls of the air , and
the beaftsof the field , as reprefented in vifion, and by a
mod fublime figure.

NOTES TO SERMON II.

ioi

Page 75. note (14*)

See <e Les Prejuges Detruits f by F. M. Lequinio,
Paris, 1793. To prove his point of prejudices being er¬
rors , he remarks, that, like the prejudices in favour of
aftrology and gbojls , “ the prejudice of nobility was ge-
“ neral throughout France three years ago; now it is
(( perfectly annihilated by a decreed ’ What would M.
Lequinio now fay of the prejudice for royalty , which alfo
fome years ago was thought to be perfectly annihilated
in France, by many different decrees P

Page 75. note (15)-

It is remarkable, that M. Dupont’s famous fpeech in
the National Convention at Paris, 1792, in which he
declared himfelf to be an Atheijl , had for its principal
fubje£t the inftitution of public fchools for the educa¬
tion of youth ; and he particularly expreffes a hope in
his fpeech, that a crowd of difciples from all parts of
Europe would flock to partake of the inftru&ions of
French Atheifts, and that thefe “ young Grangers, im-
iC bibing fuch principles, on their return to their re-
“ fpe£tive countries, might fpread the fame lights, and
<c operate, for the happinefs of mankind, revolutions
“ fimilar to that of France, throughout the world.”
Have we not reafon to rejoice in having reje&ed Juch
fyftems of perfectibility P See Mrs. Hannah More’s re¬
marks on this fpeech, p. 24.

M. Volney’s Law of Nature , or fequel to his Ruins
of Empires , was called The Catechifm of a French Citi¬
zen, I am very forry to fay I have an E nglijh tranfla-
tion of this book, in which the title is propofed to be
changed for The Catechifm of good Senfe and good Peo¬
ple, I have carefully read it, and find much in it that
is contrary to common fenfe, and much that is entirely
oppofite to truth.

Page 77* n°le (!6).

While the appeal was propofed to the whole world. ] Upon
the word appeal it has been well faid by Dr. Jenkin,

H 3 vol. i.

102

notes to sermon it.

vol. i. 309, that “ the hiftory of Chrift, (many of the
<e mod confiderable things being done in the fight of
t£ enemies,) though an hijtory to future ages, was ra-
a ther an appeal to that very age, whether the facts
were true or not.’' And again, vol. ii. 403. “ Our
religion appeared in a time the mod unlikely for an
C£ impofture to pafs undifcovered, and therefore the
“ mod feafonable for truth to manifeft itfelf; fince that
<( mud needs be true, which neither learning, nor pre¬
judice, nor vice, nor intereft could prove falfe.” As
to the obftacles in the way of the firft promulgation of
Chriftianity, fee them well fummed up in Satijbury’s
Tranjlation of Bullet's Heathen Tejlimonies , pp. 1 27, &c.

Page 78. note (17).

Before we are led to abandon the faith of our fore¬
fathers, in confequence of the clamour of the times
againft prejudices , we fhould do well to confider St.
Auftin’s account of his being feduced into the error of
the Manichees. “ Quid enim aliud me cogebat, an-
nos fere novem, fpreta religione quae mihi puerulo a
“ pareniihus infita erat, homines illos fequi et diligen-
u ter audire, nifi quod nos fuperfitione terreri, et fidem
(i nobis ante rationem tmperare dicerent. Se autem, nul-
u Turn premere ad fidem, nifi difcufia et enodata veri-
tate : Ouisnon his pollicitationibus alliceretur? Hug,
de Utilitate credendi , cap. I.

Page 79. note (18).

Ilelvetius makes the following remarks on the times.
“ Ce fiecle eft, dit-on, le fiecle de la Philofophie.
“ Toutes les nations de l’Europe out en ce genre pro-
c‘ duit des homines de genie : toutes femblent aujourd’-
cc hui s’occuper de la recherche de la Verite. Mais
C( dans quel pays peut-on impunement la publier? ii
<( n’en eft qu’un ; c’eft l’Angleterre.” After this was
written, all reftraints were taken away abroad, while
England had the good fenfe to interpoie fome fialutary
checks. Neverthelefs, Infidel Reafon had her hearing
in all countries. I queition whether Atheifm could

ever

NOTES TO SERMON II. 103 ,

ever have more to urge than is to be found in Diderot s
Syfteme de la Nature , or infidelity and blafphemy more
than we have in Mr. Paine’s Age of Reajon, which,
however fuppreffed by public authority, was long
enough extant for examination, and has been accord¬
ingly mod ably and repeatedly anfwered.

H 4

SERMON

, ' ' . *

- ■ ** - - •- i '*

> ■ - '

■

itUfa ■ ;> ‘SC! • tfi %

• . . ... ■ ' n. . .... r .

SERMON III.

2 Esdras iv. 12.

Then faid I unto him , It were better that we were not at
all , than that we Jhould live Jllll in wickednefs , and to

fuffer , and not to know wherefore .

We cannot wonder that the origin of evil
fhould in all ages have been a fubjedt of
mod; curious and anxious enquiry. That an
imperfeA work ihould come from the hands
of a perfect Being mud always have teemed
to imply a contradidion ; and yet fuch is
the condru&ion we are compelled to put
upon the prefent appearances of things. The
exidence of God, few, if any, can podibly
doubt ; and the exidence of evil, both moral
and phydcal, none can pretend to deny. To
make God the immediate author of evil can¬
not fail to thock every thinking mind ; and
yet, to refer it to any caufe independent of
God, mud needs be dill more repugnant to

our

♦

10 6 SERMON III.

our feelings. And what comfort can there

be in either cafe ? If God is the author of

evil in this world, why not in other worlds3?

If now, whj not for ever and ever? If there

exifts any independent caufe of evil, how is

the world ever to be fet free from its tv-

»/

ra n ny ? (:) If the exiftence of evil is indif-
peniably neceflary, how is this neceflity ever
to be overcome ?

There can be no comfort then derived
either from the Manichean fcheme of two
principles, or the Platonic do&rine of the
neceflary imperfe&ion of matter, both of
which long furvived the introdu&ion of
Chriftianity, and were, as is well known,
the leading features in moft of the oriental,
and even later, herefies. In either lyftem,
it is true, there is an appearance of reverence
for the Deity, which may feem to extenuate
its errors. In regard to the laft more par¬
ticularly, matter is fo diftintft from, and fo
incapable of comparifon with, any purely
fpiritual exiftence, that perhaps of all phi-
lofophical gueflfes concerning the origin of
evil, it was the leaft offence to refer it to

* See Law's Theory of Religion, p, 240.

matter,

SERMON III. 107

matter, as arifing from the very neceffity of
its fubordinate and imperfect nature t but if
matter is Jo incapable oj pcrj'cclion as to be
the very caiijc of evil, what are we to think,
not of this prefent Rate only, but of any
future one ? for neither Reafon nor Revela¬
tion will teach us that matter is to be anni¬
hilated. From Revelation w'e learn the very
contrary ; for though we read that the pre¬
fent “ heavens and earth fhall pafs away,”
we are yet taught to expect “ a new' heaven
“ and a new earth b.” Though we read that
this “ corruption mull put on incorruption,
“ and this mortal immortality",” yet we are
taught to believe that there will be a refur-
rection of the jlejh, on purpofe that “ every
“ one may receive the things done in his

“ body."

Reafon wall fcarcely teach us that matter
will be annihilated; for Reafon, unenlighten¬
ed by Revelation, has been led to deny the
very pofiibility of its non-exiflence, and con-
fequently of its creation. We have no proof
then, that I can find, of any efiential evil in-
rent in matter ; an opinion, which led the

t a Peter iii. 12, 13. c I Cor. xv.

Gnoflics

ic8

SERMON III.

Gnoftics to deny the refurredtion of the
body : of its fubordination to fpiritual fub-
ftances, a right apprehenfion of the diftinc-
tion between our own fouls and bodies
ought fufficiently to aflure us ; though phi-
lofopliical proofs without number of this
fubordination , inferiority, and dependence of
matter are certainly not wanting. Subordi¬
nation however does not neceflarily imply
poiitive imperfedtion ; a miftake which lies
at the foundation of another eminent folu-
tion of the origin of evil, that I mean of a
fcale of Beings , and which has undoubtedly
a fimilar tendency to preclude all hope of
future improvement d.

But to return. The difficulties attending
this great queftion are obvious enough ; and
indeed the exiftence and attributes of God,
the immortality of the foul, the origin of
evil, and the removal of its efFedts, all in-
volve queftions, concerning which any truly
wife and modeft man would not only defire,
but I may certainly add, expert alfo, to be
fupernaturally informed.

While the reft of the Pagan world were

J New Theory of Redemption, vol. ii. 165. 229.

eager

SERMON III.

109

eager to follow their own inventions, Socra¬
tes and Plato could acknowledge the blind-
nefs of human nature, and the neceflity of a
divine inllructor : and fo fuperior did Cicero
efteem their judgment to be in all fuch mat¬
ters, that he exprefles a degree of indigna¬
tion at the very thought of the name of
philofopher being bellowed on thofe fell-
fufficient reafoners, who pretended to fee
further than the two great Sages of ancient
Greece2. But may we not with Hill greater
propriety difpute the wifdom of fuch as yet
refufe to be enlightened by the truths con¬
tained in the facred writings ? for, in regard
to the origin of evil in particular, it mull be
evident, that if the Scriptures are of any au¬
thority, all the difficulties above enumerated
are folved at once.

God is there reprefented as the author of
evil, in the only fenfe in which it is poffible
he Ihould be ; as allowing the pojfibility of
evil, that man might enjoy the inellimable
gift of free will. From the abufe of free
will in a being of a higher order, we have
intimation of an oppojing principle, but of

c Tufiul, JDifput, lib. i. 23. See alfo lib, ill. 1.

SERMON III.

no independent one (a). As foon as we hear
of him in the Bible, we read of his depend¬
ence on the Supreme, his fubje&ion to his
irrefiflible power and will. As foon as we
read of him as an enemy to our nature, we
have intimation of God’s protection again#
him. And it is the fame in regard to earthly
things : as foon as we read of the introduc¬
tion of evil, and the corruption of matter,
and the diffolution of the body, we have in¬
timation of a remedy; we are taught to re¬
gard them not as evils of neceflary perma¬
nency, but as recoverable and temporary.

But this beautiful and fatisfaCtory folution
of all our doubts and difficulties, concerning
the origin of evil, being by the author of the
Pentateuch neceflarily exprefled, not fabu -
lonjly, (jw&dlws, but yet, iv puS’x q^fictn f, as it
were, in terms and defcriptions fo little cor-
refpondent to prefent experience, as to re -
femble fable more than fad: ; it has been
one of the conceffions moft peremptorily
demanded of us of late, that we ffiould agree
to acknowledge it to be no better than a
mythological reprefentation of things, a de-

f Arijiot. Metaphyf. j&C*. >!. xat p. n'. in .fine.

fcription

SERMON III.

fcription “ merely imagined to account for
*6 known phenomena.”

That there is an air of mythology runs
through the Molaic account of the genefis,
and fall of man, it would be quite unnecef-
fary to deny ; for how could the relation of
fuch events be kept free from the marvel¬
lous ? )(3) Who could expert to have the
creation, the origin of man, and the origin
of evil, defcribed as faCts at all familiar to
us ? Mult not they all be events fo impoffi-
ble for us to have any prefent experience of,
that as far as fable is beyond the bound of
experience, fo far the utmolt truth in fuch a
hiliory mull; have a fabulous cait. The world
is eternal or created ; if created, its creation
mult have been prior to all the ordinary pro-
celles of nature. Man and other animals
and vegetables were always propagated ac¬
cording to the prefent mode, (which would
appear to be a phylical impoffibility,) or the
a<5t of creation preceded this method, and
mult have been extraordinary and miracu¬
lous. Evil was always in the world, and
the whole vilible fcene of things imperfect
from eternity, or there mull have been a pe¬
riod for its introduction, adequate caufes

lead-

11Z

SERMON III.

leading thereto, and reafonable grounds for
its exiftence.

It was the defign of Celfus, as Origen tells
nsg, to attack Chriftianity through Judaifm ;
that, by invalidating the authority of Mofes
and the Prophets, he might fap the founda¬
tions on which the Gofpel ftands. This me¬
thod has been continually reforted to fince
by Deifts and Infidels, but it was referved for
our own times to fee thefe facred authorities

flighted and abandoned both by Jews and
Chriftians. It is well known in what terms
a celebrated tranflator has fpoken of the au¬
thor of the Pentateuch (4), to the furprife
of all true Chriftians ; and a recent tranfac-
tion on the continent has brought as much
difgrace on the Jewifti fynagogue. I allude
to an extraordinary memorial prefented to a
very confpicuous member of the Chriftian
church in the kingdom of Pruflia(5), by
fome Jews ; in which, under a hope of bet¬
tering their condition in fociety, they freely
offer to renounce all belief in the divine le¬
gation and infpiration of Mofes. As the ob¬
ject in the latter cafe was confefiedly a

s Origen conlr% CeJf. lib. i. edit. Cantab, p. 17.

worldly

SERMON III.

IT3

worldly one, I do not mean to dwell on it ;
betides that an admirable reply to their
ftrange memoir upon the fubjecft has already
appeared, and I have no particular informa¬
tion to Rate as to the event ; but in regard to
the conceffions propofed by the celebrated
trantlator and commentator alluded to, it
fliould furely be enough to know that
they cannot be acceded to, but in contempt
of the potitive declarations of our blefied
Lord himfelf.

The ftridl connection between the Old
and the New Teftaments, between the fall
and redemption of man, our Lord himfelf
has taught us to acknowledge and main¬
tain (6) ; and what becomes, (I fay it with
fubmiffion,) what becomes of his wifdom,
and purity, and excellence, if he could re¬
gard with fo much refpcct what modern
Philofophy has learnt to defpife ? His wif¬
dom, and purity, and excellence, as collected
from the hiltories of his life, I believe none
are difpofed to difpute ; and in thofe hilio-
ries we read that he declared, that though
“ one were to rife from the dead,” he could
not inftruCl us better than Mofes and the

Pro-

1 14

SERMON III.

Prophets'1. There we read, that to the in¬
credulous Jews our Saviour atTerted, that had
they “ believed in Moj'es, they would have
“ believed him There we read, that upon
the mod awful and folemn occalion poffible,
when he had to fubdue the laft prejudices of
his difciples, and to convince them of the
truth and defign of all that had befallen
him, he expounded to them in all the Scrip¬
tures the things concerning himfelf, begin¬
ning at Mofes and all the Prophets k. Nor
is the connection between the two cove¬
nants all that is determined by thefe decla¬
rations of our blefled Lord ; but it is well to
remark befides, fince St. Paul’s authority has
been difputed by the fame adventurous cri¬
tic, in regard to the infpiration of the Jewifh
canon, that thefe references of our Saviour
eftablifh the point beyond all controverfy;
for how could Mofes and the Prophets have
teftified of him, but by infpiration from
heaven ! ?

h Luke xvi. 31. * John v. 46. k Luke xxiv. 2*»-

1 See Earles Remarks , p. 62. and Profejfor Findlay on 2 Tim.
iii. 16. in anfwer to Dr. Geddes, publilhed 1S03.

SERMON III.

IJ5

In what light then can we regard the
bold afliimption of the celebrated tranflator,
that to acknowledge the hiftory of the fall
to be no better than “ an ingenious piece of
“ ancient mythology, and to compare Mofes
“ to Pilpay and ^Efop, is by no means to
“ weaken the authority of Scripture ?” To
me it appears, I muR confefs, not only that
the authority of Scripture would be weak¬
ened by fuch an interpretation, but that if
the hiftory of the fall is by any means capable
of fuch a conflnnRion, we might as well be
without any Revelation at all. For, as my
text exprefTes it, “It were better that we
u were not at all, than that we fliould live
u Rill in wickednefs, and to fuRcr, and not
to know wherefore.”

When we take a Pagan mythology to
pieces, we come perhaps to fomething like
the truth. Oiiris turns out to be the fun,
and Ifis the moon ; but the fun and moon
are realities, and we are content to reR where
this folution of the allegory leaves us. But
let the ferpent Rand for our unruly appe¬
tites, and the tree of knowledge for our
confciences, and what do we learn thence ?
Still have we to enquire, why have we un-

1 2 ruly

1 1 6

SERMON III.

ruly appetites ? why do our confidences fo
affedl us ? If the ferpent is fuppofed to be a
figure only, for temptations in general, and
the tree of knowledge for the fruits and
confequences of fin, we muft look further
for the literal lenfe of thefe very things fo
reprefented by allegory: for what could
operate as temptations to the Protoplafts of
man ? How could compliance with any de¬
fires become fin ? or how could fin produce
pain ? Pain of confcience I mean ? We muft
ftill fearch for evil, fuch evil as fliould induce
pain of confcience, in fome contradiction to an
exprefs law ; otherwife remorfe of confcience,
and pain, and fin, are all idle words. So that
if thefe reprefentations of Mofes are but fi¬
gures, they cover no literal truths : if the
account of the fall be an allegory, it is an
allegory without a key. It may leem to
explain prefent appearances, wrhile we con-
font to call fin the tranlgrefiion of a law ;
but without the tree of knowledge there
^ as then no law ; without the ierpent no
temptation. Such a law as the Apoftle re-
prefents to have been written in the hearts
of the Gentiles by the finger of God, would
in the cafe of the Protoplafts have been

SERMON III, ii j

without an object. The reft of mankind

mu ft have been born, and civil focietv efta-

blithed, and property diftinguilhed, before
the firft human pair could have become mo¬
ral creatures, and then not the whole of the
Decalogue could have applied to them. Be¬
fore tliefe events, not one law of the Two
Tables could have applied to their condi¬
tions, as muft be evident to any perfon ca¬
pable of l'eflection m.

Cellus then was much nearer the truth
than he apprehended, when he alleged that
the Mofaic hiftory did not admit of being
allegorized, or rather refolved into allegory”;
and his learned antagonift needed not to have
been fo forward to exprefs his jealoufy, that
what was eafily granted in the cafe of the
Egyptian and Grecian mythologies Ihould
be denied to the cofmogony and fall, as de-
feribed by Mofes : for it is certainly not a
fanciful reprefentation of the creation of man,
and the origin of evil, that we want-, but
the exact and pofttive hiftory of tliofe events,
as the firft and indifputable foundations of
religious and moral relponfibility.

^ \ id. Theodoretum trsp ) mpovo'ett;, T-.oy. /. p, 2jJo,
n Or) gen contr. Celf. lib. iv.

I 3

I know

SERMON III.

1 18

I know it will ftill be repeated, that
Chriftianity will anfwer many of its moll
important ends, ftanding alone. This is cer¬
tainly true : the exquifite morality of its
precepts and rules of conduct ; the annun¬
ciation of a future life, where it is believed,
will remain for our inftru&ion and our com¬
fort. Our Saviour’s bright example will re¬
main to animate and encourage us ; but the
whole that relates to our redemption, in the
atonement made for fin, as a difpenfation of
falvation from the foundations of the world,
is gone !

Thofe perfons wafte their time greatly, who
would pretend to reduce the queftion, con-*
cerning the utility and neceflity of Revelation,
to a mere queftion of morals. Our anfwer to
fuch a queftion is not to be fought for in
any laboured comparifon, too often obtruded
upon us, of Chriftian and Pagan morals, re¬
vealed and philofophical do&rines : the in-
difputable fuperiority of functions and mo¬
tives, in the cafe of a revealed religion, is
entirely fufficient to meet every objection
drawn from the capacity of the human
mind, and competency of reafon, jto difeo-
ver a rule of life. In the way of fpecula-

tion.

SERMON III.

1 19

tion, we may multiply precept upon precept,
and maxim upon maxim ; but the wrill and
authority to enforce fuch decrees mull Hill
be wanting0.

Redemption from fin and death is at all
events a diftintft matter ; this mujl be, if at
all, according to God's own purpofes. Rea-
lon can never prove to a man that he needs
no redemption, nor yet can it ever point out
to him what will be efficacious to redeem
him from fin and death ( 7 ), provided the
necefiity of redemption Ihould be admitted.
Here then is a queftion of utility quite dil-
tirnft from every other ; which mull in no
cafe be loll fight of, and which begins with
the Bible. This is a queftion, which cannot
depend on man’s difeoveries, or his powers
of reafon, but on his feelings and his necef-
fities. Let a man be ever fo perfuaded that
he may of himfelf difeover a rule of life, this
further queftion will ftill remain; Is this all
that man Hands in need ofp? Now I will
venture to aflert, that this is a queftion which

0 See the Notes to Kings Origin of Evil, p. 66. Note X. i.

p See Ldand's View of Deiftical Writers , Letter xxvii. p. 63.
5th edit.

I 4

man

120

SERMON III.

man cannot refolve. In the books of the Old
and New Tedament we read of redemption
being ne cedar j ; man cannot fay it is not ;
therefore the utility of the doctrine mult
Rand or fall with the books in which it is
contained. A man’s faying he needs no re¬
demption cannot poflibly amount to any ar¬
gument againd the authenticity of the Scrip¬
tures ; and if the Scriptures are true, man
does need redemption, for they fay fo.

Morality is of fo much importance in this
lite, of fo much confequence in a worldly
view, that the very word; of men mult with,
under fome circumdances, that the precepts
of the Gofpel were of univerfal obligation.
As a code of moral laws, therefore, none will
be difpofed to reject it : but to affert, that in
the mere morality of the Gofpel confids the
whole of Chridianity, mud be either a grofs
mifconception, or a mod perverfe mifrepre-
fentation of matters (8).

The Gofpel alone may tell us what we are
to do; but it is only in conjunction with the
Old Tedament, from which it never Ihould
be feparated, that it tells us what we are.

1 hus connected it gives us that account of
tne fpecies, which it would not only be vain,

but

SERMON III.

121

tut entirely abfurd to feek for otherwife.
No philofophical inveffigation of matters can
ever inftrud: us thoroughly either in the ori¬
gin of man, or the origin of evil. If we
will not be informed of thefe matters hilio-
rically ( 9 ), and I may add, in regard to the
creation at leaf!:, fupernaturally, we mull be
contented to be ignorant; and what is more,
we Ihould be contented to be lilent : for
furely we have great reafon to complain,
when metaphylicians pretend to inltruct the
world upon thefe points. If they can prove
the Scriptures not to be authentic, they are
free to do it ; but even this would confer no
value on their Ipeculations : moral theories
and phyfical theories of the w orld are equal¬
ly ufelefs and precarious, when once we quit
the light of Revelation, and the tellimony of
hillory. Naturalills indeed may fpeculate
on the origin of this vilible world at their
will; for we lhall alfuredly conduct ourfelves
the lame, whether the globe we dwell on
lhall be thought to have originated from a
chaotic mafs, or to have been liruck from
the fun by collifion with a comet: but let us
once be perfuaded that evil is inevitable, and
that all our actions flow from neceflity, and

the

122! S E R M O N nr;

the confequences are obvious. And if the
time and occafion would ferve, I could fhew
at length, that there is no one doubt or dif¬
ficulty, which formerly ferved to perplex
and embarrafs thefe queftions and enquiries,
from which men have, in this celebrated age,
been able to extricate themfelves. We are
Rill difputing as much as ever, not only
about the freedom or neceffity of human ac¬
tions, (which will be the fubject of a future
difcourfe,) but about their moral fitnefs and
unfitnefs ; the operation and effects of mo¬
tives ; the true diftin&ion between fubftance
and idea ; the fallibility of our faculties and
fenfes,even to the doubt, and fometimes to the
very denial, of the exiftence of matter; though
with fome, on the contrary, every thing is ma¬
terial, even the human foul. If the moral fit¬
nefs and unfitnefs of actions may be thought
in any inftance to be duly determined, ftill are
we left in want of any clear perception of
the obligation that is to govern us ; for obli¬
gation, in the abllract, is itfelf among thofe
things, whofe nature, foundation, force, I
had almoft faid whofe very exiftence has
been as much queftioned by modern meta-
phyficians, as any other point whatfoever.

- ' We

SERMON III.

123

We need not then wait for any Age of
Reafon to enlighten us upon thefe points; for
we may depend upon it, that the further we
recede from the firft beginning of things, the
more vain all fuch refearches will be. Let
us remember what it is we are enquiring
after. We do not want to be told that man
exifls, that he is a dependent being, that he
is fubjedt to both moral and phyfical ills :
we require to be informed, not fo much
what man is, as what he has been, and is to
be. We want to know, if I may with pro¬
per reverence fo exprefs myfelf, what was
in the contemplation of the Creator when he
fir ft made man ; what intimation he gave him
• of his condition and future deftiny ; or whe¬
ther any fuch intimation was ever given (I0).
We want not to be told, that there is a God
above us, and evil around us ; but we want to
Enow how thefe are to be reconciled. They
will not be reconciled by any meafures of
compenfation and mercy in ftore, without
further explanation ; for thus both compen¬
fation and mercy would feem reflections on
the Deity, who might have made us fo as
not to Hand in need of either. If God has
fpoken to us, then compenfation and mercy
. i may

124

SERMON III.

may be brought into the fyftem with the
moll glorious e fil'd : but if we are neither
allured that God has accounted to us for the
exillence of evil, nor taught us how to exer-
cife the faculties he hath endowed us with ;
both compenfation for our fufferings, and
mercy for our failings, would be our very
birthright, and God would appear a debtor
to the work of his own hands q.

From the account that Mofes has given,
we may learn that God, when he made the
firll rational inhabitant of this earth, gave a
rational account of his holy will and defign.
He gave a law, when he gave being, and
both compenfation and mercy, if I may fo
exprefs myfelf, were firjl in his divine iyf-
tem ; for our free will (if not as an inftru-
ment of happinefs univerfally, yet as the
indifpenfable diftinclion of the high rank we
hold in the fcale(") of being) was compen¬
fation for the poffibility of evil; and the
hopes of redemption from the confequences
of evil, on certain conditions, was mercy.

It is granted, by thofe moll difpofed to

’ 11 !s wel1 faid by st- Auguftme, “ Non aliquid delendo,

“ fal omnia fromittendo, Deus fe facit debitorem

treat

SERMON III.

1 25

treat this account as a mythological tale,
that even as fuch it is excellent and incom¬
parable But if it only Hood upon the foot-
ing of other legends, that have been invented,
as a noble writer fays, to folve this great
difficulty of the origin of evil for the vul¬
gar s ; it it was entirely unconnected with
other fafts, and not determined by any cir-
cumftances of time, and place, and perfons,
we might be perfectly indifferent as to its
truth. But it mult never be forgotten, that
it is accompanied with the liiltory of the
origin of the earth, and of man ; that a
determinate asra is affigned to it by the or¬
der and lucceffion of the Patriarchal fami¬
lies ; that we find it exactly where we ought
to look for it ; in the oldelt book extant ; in
the only book which gives “ fuch a view of
“ our world, and its inhabitants, and their

affai is, as muff appear to an eye obfervzng
“ from above, not from the earth ; which
“ gives an account of the original caufes of
“ things, the true fprings of events, and de-

r Geddes's Firjl Preface , p. xi.

s See Lord Shaftejbuiy's Moralijls, Part I, fea, 2,

<c dares

126

SERMON III .

r , I

“ dares the end from the beginning * •*’ iri
the only book that pretends to give us an
account at all circumftantial of the firft of
the human race ; in the only book, which,
fetting out from a particular period, has any
thing like a regular chronology and a regu¬
lar feries of events, to which we may refer,
and which we may alfo compare with other
exiting records : laffly, as it more particu¬
larly concerns ourfelves, in the only book to
which our Saviour and his Apoffles fend us
for a juit account both of the origin of man
and the origin of evil.

But betides what we learn hence of the
origin of man and of evil, we are alfo hereby
informed of the occafion of death, and in-
drafted in the means of redemption ; nei¬
ther of which could ever be otherwife afcer-
tained, than through the means of hiftory
and revelation : and yet they are fo neceflary
towards a due comprehention of the prefent
fcene of things, and as fuch are fo inti¬
mately connected with each other, that,
without them, all that is now, all that is

Burgh on the Dignity of human Nature.

k pad:,

SERMON III. |2?

paft, and all that is to come, are equally in¬
explicable.

For that man may be removed to a ftate
of greater perfection than the prefent, few
will pretend to deny : the Deift has hopes
of immortality, and the Socinian feels af-
fured of it. Now a future life of perfect
happinefs and immortality involves in it the
leading principles of redemption. Why an¬
other life, or any removal hence, if this life
is perfect already ? But if this is not perfeCl,
why is it not fo ? Did God render it necef-
farily imperfeCt at firft ? How then is he to
be expeCted to grant hereafter what he at
firft withheld ? The whole is explained by
the Mofaic account. Things were perfeCt,
and may be rendered fo again ; and thus, as
an acute writer has obferved, “ there is fo
“ necefiary a connection throughout the fa-
“ brie of redemption, that you muft either
“ admit or rejeCt the whole together ; there
is no accepting of one part without the
“ other. The Scripture fully harmonizes with
“ itfelf in the three particulars of innocence
“ paft, depravity prefent, and rightemfnefs
“ to come ; the laft of tliefe effentially in-

“ volving

128

SERMON III.

“ volving both of the preceding fuppoli-
“ tions.”

To conclude : This is the mythology we
muft fet afide, if Mofes was a fabulift. The
good tidings of redemption are to be found
in the very beginning of the Bible : there
we are inftrucfted not folely in the origin of
evil, of which only hiflory, and certainly not
7netaphyjics , can ever fatisfadtorily inform
us ; but of redemption from its confequences,
of which Revelation alone, and certainly not
metaphyjics, could ever properly affure us.
It is not a lyftem of philofophy or religion
brought forth from caves or hollow trees ;
not derived from fuch deities as Jupiter and
Apollo (I3) ; not refting on fanciful conjec¬
tures, or fubtle reafonings ; but an open de¬
claration of fa&s, accompanied with the
moll public and folemn appeals to heaven ;
afliiming to be derived from that very God,
whofe fupremacy and providence the Deift
and the Chriftian equally acknowledge.
Without fuch an explanation of matters, this
wrorld is a myftery (I3), which the wicked
muft be left to folve and interpret as he
pleafes ; while the good will remain without

any

SERMON HI. 12g

any certain hopes of remedy or relief. But
the myftery once folved as it is folved by
this account ; the origin of evil once ex¬
plained fo as to fecure man’s hopes, and
vindicate God’s providence, every difficulty
vaniffies. We know our Maker ; we fee

our Judge ; and we can comprehend our-
ffilves.

;

NOTES

' , 1

ip; t

(

% i

'■ -4*

t (

w '

) V

r r *'

■»- "* . ' ■- «

. ■ > ■

• ■

: .

- ■ /^, - •

7 . .1 ^

, ;nry;,:

. 1

'• r • T •

\ »

■

NOTES TO SERMON III.

Page io 6. note (i).

^ ^ tl-eve ex'ifls any independent cciufe of evil , how is the
world ever to he fet free from its tyranny .<?] How very
unphilofophically, to fay no more, does Roufleau fpeak,
when he lays, u Mais ce monde eft-il eternel ou cree ?
“ y a-t-il un principe unique des chofes, y en a-t-il
“ deux ou plufieurs, et quelle eft leur nature ? Je n’en
“ fiais rien, et que m' import e ?” Thefe are queftions, he
adds, “ inutiles a fa conduite, et fuperieures a fa Rai-
i( fon.” Emile , lib. iv. vol. iii. p. 40.

Is it of no importance to us to be informed whether
there exifts an independent caufe of evil ? Let the Ma-
nicheans pufti their arguments as far as they pleafe ;
let them appear to fome to be better advocates for the
purity and perfection of God, as far as their doCtrines
are applied to folve only the prefent appearances of
things ; yet, what are we to think of futurity ?

Mr. Gibbon reckons the following doCtrines, which
the Gnoftics borrowed from Zoroafter, fuhlime ones ;
viz. the eternity of matter, the exiftence of two prin¬
ciples, and the myfterious hierarchy of the invifible
world. Decline and Fall , ch. xv. He calls Auguftin’s
converlion, alfo, from Manicheifm, C( a progrefs from
i( Rea/on to Faith.” T his may have been fo, perhaps,
as far as Reafon is to be confidered as inadequate to
acquaint us with the real origin of evil : but if Mr.
Gibbon meant to infinuate, that it was a progrefs from
principles confonant to Reafon, to thofe that were not
lo, this vve politivelv deny.

Bayle afturedly meant to infinuate no lefs, in his
notes to the articles Manicheens , Marcionites , Pauliciens ,
Origene , Zoroafre , in his critical Dictionary, where he
pretends, that, to argue againft faBs is abfurd ; and

k 2 there-

NOTES TO SERMON III.

J.3Z

therefore, though it fhould be ever fo contrary to Rea -
fori, that moral evil fhould have entrance into a world
formed by a Being infinitely good and holy, yet we
mu ft fubmit to believe fo, on the authority of the Old
Teftament, which the Manicheans, as he obferves,
were confident enough to reject. The axiom, cc ab a£tu
“ ad potentiam valet confequentia,” is as clear, fays
he, as the propofition that two and two make four.
We grant this, but are far from yielding to the confe-
quences he would draw. Evil is in the world, we are
certain : that God is good and pure, we are alio cer¬
tain : therefore the poffibility of evil obtaining to a
certain degree under the providence of a good God, is
evident to us from the fa ft ; but it by no means appears
to us to follow from thence, that it would be moft rea-
J'onable to refer the origin of evil to an independent
principle of evil, becaufe this muft for ever preclude us
from all expe6lation of its removal. And as all the ar¬
guments which M. Bayle puts into the mouths of the
Manicheans (and it muft be admitted that he does the
utmoft juftice to their caufe) tend to the eftabiifhment
of God’s moral attributes of goodnefs and purity, it
may furely admit of a queftion, whether, to argue phi-
lofophically only, that fyftem which provides for the
removal of evil in time to come , is not much more con¬
ducive to the glory of the Deity, than that, which, to
account for prefent appearances, excludes all hopes of
the melioration of things ? Or which, by way of ren¬
dering the prefent fyftem poffible in the eye of Realon,
would make it impoffible for the providence of God to
induce a change ?

This is the great point to be confidered, upon a view
of the exifting faffs ; the poffibility of a change. The
fa£t of the exiftence of evil, both moral and phyfical,
is fully admitted by all ; but every philofophical fyf¬
tem, which refers it to a caufe independent of God,
neceffarily involves the improbability, or rather impof-
fibility, of any change for the better; and muft dero¬
gate more from the attributes of God, than any con-
clufions to be drawn from the prefent permiffion of evil,
with a profpe£t of its removal in whole or in part.
M. Bayle pretends to exclude all a priori reafonings
upon the fubje£t ; but it is lurprifing how continually

NOTES TO SERMON III.

J33

he departs from this fyftem. Every argument on the
Manichean fide may reafonably be com'idered as an ar¬
gument a priori , and chiefly founded on a petitio princi -
pit of the poflible exiftence of two principles ; whereas,
m adopting the plan of reafoning a pofieriori , from the
exiftence of faCls, we are guilty of no petitio principii ,
in fuppofing the exiftence of a good principle; for that is
what the Manicheans admit as well as we. His reafon-
ings againft the Origenifts [art. Origenc, note e. edit.
1738. Bafle] confift entirely of d priori arguments, re-
gardlefs of fads. For he would infift upon it, that a
good God cannot permit evils in any degree, or upon
any conditions; though this is incapable of proof d prio¬
ri, and d pojleriori the evidence of fads is againft him.
He fays indeed, that the ftrongeft arguments of the
Manicheans are founded on the hypothefis of a few
being faved, and the reft eternally damned : but the
exiftence of two independent principles implies the ne-
ceflary exiftence of evils, both natural and moral, to
eternity, by the acknowledgment of M. Bayle himfelf,
(fee his Eclair cijjement at the end of his Dictionary, p.
630.) and this in direCt oppofttion to a perfectly good
and pure principle.

Nothing lefs than an eternal independent principle of
evil would anfwer the ends of the Manicheans, as
Bayle argues, art. Zoroajlre , note f. ii. p. 539 ; be-
caufe, quod eft caufa caufse eft caufa caufati there¬
fore, fays he, if Arimanius was a creature , then God
mu ft be the caufe of evil, by creating Arimanius, the
evil principle. We fhall not flop to argue this point
with M. Bayle; thofe who think the queftion may be
decided metaphyfically, may confult the Summa of St.
Thomas , particularly Part 1. Quaeft. xlix. and the 2d
article of the lame queftion ; where he contends, that
there can be no firft principle of evil, as there is a firft
principle of good ; becaufe all evil being defett, pre-
luppofes good as its fubjeCt. Therefore evil can never
prevail over good, becaufe, “ dcftruClo omni bono,
(C (quod requiritur ad integritatem niali) fubtrahitur
“ ipfum malum cujus fubjeCtum eft bonum.” And
■perhaps this is as good a metaphyjical argument againft;
two independent principles as any. St. Auguftin ar-
'gues much in the fame way, De Chit. Dei , xi. 9. xii.

K3 • 6.7.

^34

NOTES TO SERMON III.

6. 7. and our learned Barrow feems difpofed to adopt
his reafonings, vol. ii. Serm. 12. But to return.

We would contend then again ft the Manicheans, and
upon M. Bayle’s own plan of argument, that all a pofte-
riori reafoning from fadis would lead vs to acquieice in
the fcriptural account of things, in preference to any
philofophical fyftem extant, though they fhould all
proceed upon the principle of not referring the origin
of evil to a good caufe. We have already noticed, in
the Difcourfe itfelf, the tendency of the two other fyf-
tems ; namely, that of a fcale of beings, and the eflen-
tial malignity of matter, to preclude all hope of any
future extermination of evil ; and therefore thefe alio
mult be conlidered, however well defigned, as refleCl-
ing on the Deity.

Many have been difpofed to allow all thefe feveral
fyftems the merit of endeavouring to provide for the
honour of God, and to exculpate him, as a Being of
purity and perfection, from being the caufe of evil. But
the Manichean lcheme, of all others, feems the leaft
entitled to fucli indulgence, as precluding all inter¬
ference of the good principle, except by compromise and
concejjion , (which was Bayle’s amendment of the hy-
pothefis,) and which muft efpecially derogate from the
honour of God.

The Platonifts, (as reprefented by Plutarch, who was
for efpoufing their doCtrine in preference to that of He¬
raclitus, in his '9vxpymQL, cited by Cudworth, b. iv.6.)
though they contended for the eternity of matter, and
its eflential depravity, yet referred the order of the
world to the change wrought on matter by God ; OJ yap
ex roy [J.yj ovrog r] y&vscrtg, ak'd ex rS yd, xxk 00; y<7)<$’ Ixa.vxg
EXovrog. One fuch change does not abfolutely preclude
a fecond; fo that this error leaves an opening for im¬
provement at leaft, and that through the power and
will of God. Indeed the true Platonic idea feems to
have been, that evil, and that chiefly phyfical evil, is
only necejfary in regard to the things of this lower
world; [lee Max. Tyrius , Dijfert. xxv.] and that Mind,
or God, would in the end get the better of this necef-
fityr. See Wife againjl Albeifm , vol. i. p. 136. and Cud-
worth , as before.

The Gnoftics, indeed, when they came to blend the

NOTES TO SERMON III.

J35

philofophical notion of two principles with Chriftianity,
generally acknowledged Chrift to be lent to overcome
the evil principle : [lee Mojheim :] but M. Bayle will
not allow Juch Manicheifm to be reafonable; he infills
upon it, that the evil principle mull; be independent, or
God the foie caufe of evil, and that Reafon cannot de¬
termine otherwife.

The fyltem of a fcale of beings has for its fupporters,
as is well known, the celebrated Archbp. King, and
his learned commentator. Pope has illufirated it in verle,
heedlefs, as it has been fuppofed, of the bad tendency
of the principles with which he was fupplied by Bo-
lingbroke. The objection to this fyllem feems to be,
that it makes evil, both moral and phyfical, fo necef-
fary, as to leflen, if not deltroy entirely, the probability
of a change. For, as an able writer has well remarked,
to confider man in his depraved Jlate , as occupying his
proper rank in the fcale of beings, is not only contra¬
dictory to the Scriptures, which particularly fpeak both
of a preceding and a future different ftate of man ; but
tends to preclude all hope of change, which could
not happen upon fuch principles, without the diffolu-
tion of that very chain of being, and confequently
without injury to the creation. [See New Theory of Re¬
demption, book ii. ch. 8.] For as Pope himfelf ar-
gues,

“ - on fuperior powers

“ Were we to prefs, inferior might on ours :

“ Or in the full creation leave a void,

t( Where, one ftep broken, the great fcale' s deltroy ’d.

From nature’s chain whatever link you firike,

*( Tenth or ten ttioufandth, breaks the chain alike.”

Epift. I. 243.

This is certainly very hazardous doCtrine, when we
are taught bcfides to believe, that

“ AU fubfifts by elemental ftrife,

“ And pallions are the elements of life.

“ The general order , fince the whole began,

“ Is kept in nature , and is kept in man." Ib. 169, &~c.

M. Bayle objects alfo, as is well known, to the fyf-
tem which refers the origin of evil to the abufe of free
will : but of this we lhall have more to fay el fe where,
f lhall conclude the prefent note by oblerving, that

K 4 this

NOTES TO SERMON III.

136

this circumftance of a future change , and redemption from
evil, though reafonably to be expeCted upon the fuppo-
fition of a good principle, yet muft ferve to evince the
pofitive neceffity of a divine Revelation, while Infidelity
and Atheifm ftill fhelter themlelves behind the old ar¬
gument, as it is expreffed by one of the moft modern
writers of that delcription ; C( Si, malgre fa bonte toute
u puiftante, Dieu n’a, ni pu, ni voulu, rendre fes crea-
“ tures cheries complettement heureufes eri ce monde,

quelle raifon a-t-on de croire qu’il le pourra, on le

voudra dans un autre Syjleme de la Nature , ch. vii.
Part II.

We anfwer, that God has effectually done away this
difficulty, in the Revelation he has been pleated to
make of his moll; holy will and purpofes, from the firft
creation of man.

It is. the Scripture only that can fecure us alfo from
the revival of the ancient error of the eternity of mat¬
ter, and its effiential imperfection; for Rouffeau fully
acknowledges, in his Letter to the Archhijhop of Paris,
that if it was not for the Scriptures, he ffiould think
this the moft reafonable account to be given of things;
and he even doubts whether the Scriptures do contra¬
dict it; for he fays it depends entirely on the word N“D,
which may be mif-tranflated. But we have little to
do with the word in determining the queftion con¬
cerning the origin of evil, if the Scriptures are ac¬
knowledged to be of any authority ; for they not only
difcover to us the very means whereby evil was intro¬
duced into this world, but exprefsly affiure us, that, pre¬
vious to the fall of man, every thing upon the earth, or
in the fyftem, was in its nature good. See Gen. i. 10.
12. 18. 21. 25. 31.

The author of the Syjleme de la Nature fays, ff tout
“ le monde convient que la matiere ne peut s’aneantir
“ totalement, ou ceffier d’exifter.” If fo, the philofophi-
cal notion of the depravity and effiential imperfection
of matter ftrikes direCtly at the doCtrine of the relur-
reCtion of the body : but, as Origen fays, the body has
not naturally^ any malignity in it. ^vcig cdy.a.rog ou
(uapcc' 8 ydp y puaig [crd y.arog'] pAocporryog ro
rrjs [uaporryos fa njv faccv. Contr. Celf lib. iii. p. 136.
edit. Cantab. Many objeCtors have conceived, that the

refur-

NOTES TO SERMON IIL

157

<J 4

refurre&ion of the body is denied by the Apoftle, j Cor.
xv. 50. “.Now this I lay, brethren, thatfielh and blood
“ cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” They are well
anlwered by Mr. Granville Sharp, in his Treatife on
the Law of Nature in Man , p. 400. Though, as the
objection is an old one, a fufficient explanation is to be
found in almoft every commentary upon the pafiage ;
and indeed, as Mr. Sharp obferves, the Apoftle himlelf
explains his meaning in the very next words. It is not
the fubftance, but the corruptibility of the body, that is
to be done away.

Page no. note (2).

IVe have intimation of an oppofing principle , but of no
independent one.] Mr. Paine, in his Age of Reaf on, pre¬
tends that the Scriptures reprefent Satan as great, if not
greater than the Almighty ; as defeating by ftratagem,
in the (hape of an animal of the creation, all the power
and wijdom of the Almighty ! as having compelled the
Almighty to the direct neceffity either of furrendering
the whole of the creation to the government and fove-
reignty of Satan, or of capitulating for its redemption
by coming down upon earth, and exhibiting himfelf
upon a crofs in the ihape of a man : as making the tranf-
grefior triumph, and the Almighty fall !

Diderot, in his Syfleme de la Nature , refernbles the
opposition between Jehovah and Satan to the Struggles
between the good and evil principles of the feveral
heathen nations: “a caufe de tantd’effets oppofes •qu’on
“ vit dans la nature, on admit pendant long-temps pln-
“ fieurs dieux. Telle eft fur-tout Porigine du dogme
“ ft ancien et ft univerfel des deux principes. Viola la
“ fource des combats que toute Pantiquite fuppofe entre
“ des dieux bons et medians, entre Ofiris et Typhon,
“ Oromafde et Arimane, Jupiter et les Titans, Jehovah
“ et Satan.” M. Holland, in his excellent Reflexions
Philofophiques on the above work, is contented to
obferve, “ Pour ce qui eft des combats que Pauteur fup-
“ pole avoir ete livres entre Jehovah et Satan , il ne pent
“ les avoir trouves que dans Milton.” In what’ light
Satan appears as the opponent of the Deity in the
writings of Milton, we need not fay; it mull be well
known, that in the two immortal Poems of that great

writer.

NOTES TO SERMON III.

i.3s

writer, the whole object is to prove, that the Ci tranf-
greftor” could not triumph,” nor “ the Almighty
“ fall.” So that if the combat invented by the Poet,
and engrafted on the plain and limple narrative of Mo¬
les, may be held to inftruCt us in Scripture truths, we
may exprefsly refer to it as an admirable reply to the
impious fuggeftions of the author of the dge of Reafon ;
while it being a faCt, that no relation of any combat is
to be found in the Scriptures between Jehovah and Sa¬
tan, Diderot’s companion falls at once to the ground.

It is not to be denied, however, that the doctrine of
two principles, and the Mofaic relation of the fall of
man, and introduction of evil into the world, have been
often confounded, though nothing can in reality be
more contrary ; fo much fo indeed, that the learned
author of the Divine Legation of Mofes would in lift
upon it, that the hiftory of Satan, in the book of Job,
was exprefsly defigned to guard the Jews againft the
error of two principles, which they had been in danger
of imbibing, during their captivity in Babylon. [Book vi.
§. 2.] Though the learned author might be miftaken
as to the true hiftory of the book of Job, he had aftur-
edly difcernment enough to be entirely correCt in his
judgment of the character of Satan, and of his J'ubjec-
tion to the Supreme Being, as they are reprefented in
Scripture ; nor can he be wrong in fuppofing, that the
doCtrine of two independent principles is direCtly op-
pofed in the Scriptures, if not by the character of Satan
in the book of Job, yet by the evident allufion to the
Magian fuperftition, and the vindication of God’s fu-
premacy, in the Prophecy of Ifaiah, xlv. 6, 7. cc I form
“ the light, and create darknefs ; I make peace, and
“ create evil. There is no God befides me;” which the
learned author particularly refers to. “ And yet,” fays
he, “ we have heads weighty enough to get to the
“ bottom of this matter;” that is, as he expreftfes him-
fell, who, contrary to the Scriptures , would believe, that
the Jews obtained their notion of Satan from the Chal¬
deans. Now this is a miftake the world is ftill in dan¬
ger of being led into. In ]\lr. Lmdfey* s ConverJations
on the Divine Government , publiftied fo lately as 1802,
the Jewifh notions of an evil being are exprefsly fup-
poled to have been derived from the Chaldeans; u who

“ pro-

NOTES TO SERMON I'll.

J39

cc probably might have pointed out to them/7 fays he,
“ or they might themfelves imagine, that the ferpent,
u who is reprefented as acting iuch a principal part in
cc their own facred hiftory, was the evil principle of the
cc Chaldeans.” Mr. Lindfey’s objedd is to prove, that
there is no evil Being whatfoever, and that the Jews
could derive no fuch idea from their own books. We
may reafonably afk, why fhould they be more eafily led
to think the ferpent might be the evil principle of the
Chaldeans, than the Satan of Jews and Chriftians?
“ With whofe hiftory,” fays Warburton, <( it is evident
(( they were acquainted in their captivity ; and nothing
“ could better fecure them from the dangerous error of
tC the two principles , which was part of the national re-
“ ligion of the country, into which they were led cap-
<c tive.” So entirely do Bifhop Warburton and Mr.
Lindfey differ upon this fubje6t. But in regard to the
true chara&er of the tempter and leducer of mankind,
in the Mofaic hiftory, I have endeavoured in the Dif-
courfe itfelf to ftate it as concifely as I could ; and I am
fure the account I hake given is confonant to the words
of Scripture ; for there we undoubtedly read of “ an
oppojing principle , hut of no independent one .”

This fhould never be loft fight of, becaufe all our
hopes mull reft on the poflibility of a redemption and
deliverance from the evils of this world. Of the pofii-
bility of an oppoftion to the will of God we have daily
experience, in the conduct of the hardened finner;
and therefore it is of the utmoft importance to be able
to look back to the firft beginning of moral evil ; that
is, to the account given us in the Scripture of the
firf Being,

“ Who durft defy th’ Omnipotent.” -

Paradife Lof, b. i. 49.

where, fo far from finding any independent principle ,
any triumphant tranfgrejjor , the truth certainly is, as I
have reprefented it, that, “ as foon as we hear of him
in the Bible, we read of his dependence on the Su-
“ preme ; as foon as we read of him as an enemy to
(C our nature, we have intimation of God’s protection
“ again ft him.” Gen. iii. 14, 15. Lord Bolingbroke
pretends, indeed, that the fuppofition of an inferior de¬
pendant Being , who is afjimed to he the author of all evil,

140

NOTES TO SERMON III.

is more abfurd than the do&rine of two independent
principles. See him admirably anfwered by Leland, in
his View of Deijlical Writers , Letter xxx. note, p.140.
Vol. ii. 5th edit.

Page hi. note (3.)

For how could the relation of fuch events he kept free
from the marvellous r’]

“ For man to tell how human life besran
“ Is hard ; for who himfelf beginning knew ?

Paradife Loft , b. viii. 2$o.

(( The account is what we fhould call, in reference
€i to our experience, miraculous ; but was it poflible it
“ fhould be otherwife ? I believe the greateft Infidel
u will not deny, that it is at leaft as plaufible an opi-
(C nion, that the world had a beginning, as that it had

not. If it had, can it be imagined by any man in his
“ fenfes, that that particular quality fhould be an ob-
“je&ion to the narrative, which he knows it mu ft
“ have ? Muft not the firft produ&ion of things, the
“ original formation of animals and vegetables, require
C£ exertions of power, which in prefervation and propa-
“ gation can never be exemplified V’ Campbell on Mi-
racles , Part II. §. 7. See alfo §. 6. p. 213.

That an extraordinary mode of produ&ion was in-
difpenfably necefthry, feems to be a fair conclufion,
from the famous problem concerning the Hen and the
Egg. Macrohius , lib. vii. The eternity of the world is
contradi&ed by that very problem. See Nichols's Con¬
ferences , vol. i. p. 18. and confult Macrobius for the
arguments on the fubje&. It is not a little remarka¬
ble, that Mofes, in his Cofmogony, has exprefsly fet¬
tled the queftion, in the cafe of herbs and trees.
Gen. i. 12.

Page 112. note (4).

It is well known in what terms a celebrated trarflator
has Jpoken of the author of the P entateuch .] See Notes
(6) and (12), Sermon II. At the end of Dr. Geddes’s
critical remarks on the Pentateuch, we have his creed
as to the divine infpiration of Mofes, in Latin verfies,

{faulty

NOTES TO SERMON III.

141

( faulty ones, fee Brit . Crit. vol.xix. p.5.) thus englifned
by himfelf.

“ You afk me ferious, whether I believe
“ That Mofes was infpir’d ? My friend, receive
“ This ferious anfwer : Yes, he was infpir’d
11 "With that fame fiavie which Numa’s bofom fir’d.
t( Numa, Lycurgus, every other fage
tf Who legillated for a barbarous age,

“ All drank from wifdom’s fount, or wifdom’s rill ;

“ Large draughts they drew — but Mofes larger ftili.

(e Yet think not all the draughts that Mofes drew
<( Were limpid draughts; lometimes a flimy hue
“ Beting’d the waters. Since the world began
“ One man drew purely ; — Jesus was that man !

“ Jefus alone, full of the godhead, brought
<e A code of laws divine, that lacketh nought.

“ Then dumb let other legiflators be,

“ And Jefus only legiflate for me.”

See Good's Life of Dr. Geddes.

Tnftead of other legiflators being dumb, it is cer¬
tainly remarkable, that Jefus fhould have faid of the
Jewifh legiflator and his fucceffors, “ If they hear not
Ci Mofes and the Prophets, neither will they be per-
Ci fuaded though one rofe from the dead.” Such was
the opinion of our Lord himfelf, as to the authority of
Mofes and the other facred writers of the Old Tefta-
ment. But to anfwer Dr. Geddes in his own way ;
cc If Mofes was a mere human legiflator,” fays a very
amiable modern writer, “ how comes it that his infti-
“ tutions are ftili obeyed ? He fiourifhed many ages
Ci before Lycurgus , Solon, or Numa , who were efleemed
“ the wileft of mankind, in the ages in which they
“ refpe&ively lived ; and they travelled to remote re-
Ci gions, to form a body of laws that fhould combine
iC every poffible advantage, which collective wifdom
u could beftow. Thefe laws were folemnly impofed,
and received with reverence; and the nations for
(c whom they were defigned grew powerful and re-
“ nowned, under the influence of thofe inftitutions.
cc Yet, of thefe nations, hiftory is now the only repofi-
(< tory. No people, no body of men, not even a few
“ exiles are influenced by what a goddefs whifpered to
(( Numa, in 4 the Egerian Grot/ or by what Lycurgus,

“ from

NOTES TO SERMON III.

141

ec from bis own perpetual exile, bound bis countrymen
u to obey : while the Jews have continued a diftinCi,
(£ unmixed people, and, under every difadvantage, pre-

ferved their law and their cuftams.M See Mrs. JVefl's
Letters to her Son. How exaCtly Dr. Geddes agreed
with Lord Bolingbroke in his opinion of the Bible,
fee Earle's Remarks , p. 66. For an anfwer to Lord Bo-
Mngbroke, fee Le land’s View of Deijlual Writers, Let¬
ters xxviii. xxix. xxx. vol. ii. 5th edit.

Page 1X2. note (5).

I allude to an extraordinary memorial prefen ted to a
very confpicuous member of the Chriflian church in the
kingdom oj Pruffiah] This memorial was addrefied by
certain Jews to M. Teller, Confeiller du Co? iff dire fu-
pbrieur , et PrevSt a Berlin , about fix or feven years ago.
In it they exprefs a defire to be admitted into fociety,
upon an equal footing with (Jhriftians, on profeffing
their belief of five general propofitions of moral theo-
logy, or pure Deijm , which they fubmit to his confi-
deration. They acknowledge them helves to be quite
prepared to renounce their faith in the divine origin of
their Law, and exprefs a hope and expectation, that
Cbriftians will be induced to accede to fuch a common
form of belief, to the exclufion of all particular doc¬
trines. The Jews were admirably anfwered by M. de
Luc ; and a further eorrefpondence took place between
him and M. Teller on the fubjeCl; in which the authen¬
ticity and literal fenfe of the three fird chapters of Ge-
nefis are ably vindicated, and the indifpenfable impor¬
tance of the hifiory they contain, evinced by many
ftrong arguments.

The Jews, in their memorial, having affigned, as a
caufe for their indifference in regard to the truth of
the Mofaic records, the recent advancement of human
knowledge , M. de Luc applies himfelf to examine into
tne real date of knowledge, as it relates to the hifiory
of man ; and with great judgment and force of reafon-
iug (hews, .that this is the very branch of fcience lead
capable of improvement, and in which, if Revelation is
once abandoned, the lead certainty is to be expeCted.
Having {hewn that fome fciences admit of conelufive
realoning, (fuch as Geometry, Aftronomy, &c.) while

others

NOTES TO SERMON III.

14 3

others do not, he thus proceeds to ftate the need of
Revelation, from the manifeft uncertainty that mud en-
fu-e from every man’s having to form a religion for
himfelf. “ II y a plus ; on voit par l’experience, que
6C moins l’entendement a de moyens furs et precis pour
former quelque jugement fur un objet, plus chaque
(( homme fe croit en droit d’en decider : dans les fci-
cnees fondees fur des lumieres qui peuvent etre ac-
66 quiles avec certitude, on voit rarement ceux qui n’en
Ci ont pas fait leur etude, fe meler d’en raifonner. Mais
“ quant a la Religion , vers laquelle tend tout le fujet
“ que je traite ici, en vue de votre memoire ; parce
“ qu’elle doit fervir de bafe a la morale , et par celle-ci
“ a V or dr e facial ; des qu’on n’admettra pas une reve-
“ latlon immediate de 1’Etre fupreme, faite a certaines
“ epoques pour tous les hommes 5 et qu’ainli on ne
“ voudra de Religion , qu’autant que la Raifon feule
“ pourra y conduire, chacun fe fera une Religion pour
foi, s’il s’en fait une ; car la pretention a la Raifon eft,
“ et ne pent qu etre, egale chez tous les hommes; et vu
“ la fublimite de l’objet, vers lequel aucune connoif-
“ fance humaine ne peut fervir d’echelon, l’ignorant en
^ parlera meme avec plus d’aflurance que l’homme qui
£C s’en fera occupe le plus profondement.” He infifts
upon it, that no abftraft propofttions can be a fufficient
bails of morality, and refers to the writings of M.
Fichte, Profelfor of Philofophy at Jena, to (hew how
little agreement is even now to be expe&ed in regard
to the decifions of pure Reafon. M. Fichte, he ob-
ferves, had by anticipation, as it were, exprefsly con-
tradifted the very firft of their five propofitions. (e II
(C y a un Dieu — etre incree — unique — injlni — le Createur
u — Confervateur et Juge de l’univers.” But according
to M. Fichte, the idea of a creation diftindft from the
Creator is an abfurdity. (( Je voudrois, qu’il eut plu a
mes adverfaires de me donner fur ce fujet, pour la
££ premiere fois, un mot intelligible, qui me fit entendre
ce qu’ils veulent exprimer en difant, Dieu a cree le
(e monde , et comment on peut fe faire une idee d’une
c( telle creation. Tant qu’ils n’auront pas donne ce
“ mot, j’aurai droit de penfer qu’il faut avoir perdu Vef-
(e prit pour croire a un Dieu co>nme Us y croient , et que
6i mon AtheiJ'me ne confifte qu’en ce que je voudrois

“ garder

144

NOTES TO SERMON III.

(C garder mon efprit.” I have ventured to tranfcribc
this paflage from M. Fichte’s Appeal to the public, as
I find it in M. de Luc’s Lettre aux Juifs , becaufe it
certainly ferves to prove M. de Luc’s point, viz. that
no advances, that have been recently made in human
knowledge, may encourage us to expeft any greater
agreement among men, in regard to any abftrael: pro-
pofitions; and that nothing lei’s than a divine revela¬
tion can ever be expelled to produce a general ac¬
knowledgment of the very firft principle of Religion,
namely, that there exifis a Creator of the univerfe, a
Creator who is diftin£t from the vifible creation. e( J’ai
ee dit,” fays M. Fichte, as I find him cited in another
place, u que l’idee de Dieu, com me fub fiance a part,
“ etoit une idee impoffible et contradi&oire.” Accord¬
ing then to M. Fichte, both Jews and Chriflians have
loft their wits, who pretend to believe the creation of
the univerfe, as generally received. And we have poli-
tive proof, to ufe M. de Luc’s own words, u que les
<( idees d’un Createur et d’un vionde cree peuvent etre
“ rejetees par les hommes, quand elles ne leur font
£( prefentees que comme des idees de la Raifon”

But M. de Luc proves further, that every one of the
Jews’ five propofitions is contradifted by the fyftem
of M. Fichte. C( Jugez par la, Meffieurs,” M. de Luc
concludes, u quels peuvent etre les ecarts de l’efprit hu-
u main, quant aux dogmes ; tandis que vous confide-
“ riez ceux que vous propofez dans votre memoire,
i£ comme etant appuies fur le commun confentement de

tons les hommes , d’apres les lumieres naturelles !” I
fhall have occafion to notice M. de Luc’s correfpondence
with M. Teller hereafter.

Page 1 13. note (6.)

The JlriEl connexion between the Old and the New Tejla -
meats — our Lord himfelf has taught us to acknowledge and
maintain .] Tertullian, in his book adverfus Judeeos , has
ably pointed out the connexion between the two Tef-
taments. See Houtteville' s Critical and Hijiorical Dtf-
courfe.' See alfo Ladlantlus , lib. iv. St. Cyril of Jerufa-
lem gives this definition of Chriftian faith : “ H zzirif
— tftzo-ccv rrtv sv ry TtccXcaoi ^ xcc'ivri [SiaSrpy fubintell.] 7%
svcrsgsHZf yv'jjonv b/naKoKt ifcu, CatecheJ \ V. And in his

Filth

NOTES TO SERMON III.

VHth Lie Bure he deprecates every reparation of the
two Teftaments : O 6 yap dysfcdp&a, rcov aicsnxcbv rdv rrg
rsakaiocv rrtg xocivrjg 8ia.§rjxrJg d'n'ooylgovrujv’ aAAcc rep Xp/ccv
&ct<r&rj<r6(&E&cc, no xkyovn rszpi ra 'Lspov, (the temple of the
Jews,) 8x resile on kv rolg roj Uccrpog pocv Hsl pos shea ; ac¬
knowledging, as Cyril remarks, that the temple of Je-
rufalem was his Father’s houfe. The fame Father, in
his Xth LeBure , fpeaks of John the Baptift, as, rpoirov
nvcc cvvoLTfTuov dyporspag kv econo rag diccS^xacg, vcckoclccv xa)
xcuyYjV. ££ Quodammodo conglutinans in feipfo ambo Tef-
66 tamenta,” as Grodecius renders it. See alfo Difc. xvi.

What was heretical in the days of Cyril is fo now.
The Old and New Teftaments are infep arable ; and no
true Chriftian can think himfelf authorized to.££ put
e£ afunder” what God has by fo many notices “joined”
and connected. “ ’AA rftcog pcsv yap,” as Origen fays,
( contr . Celf. lib. ii.) Xcig-iccyolg rt siracyuiyrj ss~iv ditb rduv is-
pcov Mco’jostog, X) nbv zrpo^rixibv ypap^droovT The fepara-
tion indeed is never propofed, but with fome defign
of getting rid of the peculiar doctrines of our moft holy
religion. The Deift is for the feparation, becaufe, con¬
nected, the evidence of a divine interpofition is too
ftrong to be refifted : the great chain of prophecies and
events muft be broken, or his caufe is loft : the hand
of God muft be acknowledged. The Socinian is for
the feparation, becaufe atonement and redemption by
blood are too prominently fhadowed forth, in the typi¬
cal facrifices of the Jewifh law, to be difputed or re¬
fifted. For, as an elegant writer has lately obferved of
the Old Teftament, “ If this remains as a type, then
“ the Chrifiian doClrine of atonement muft be received
<£ as the fulfilment* and therefore,” fays ftie, ££ the
“ Socinians impugn its authority.” See Wefts Letters
to her Son.

But befides the Jewifh facrifices, the fall of man fo
evidently implies the need of redemption, that the So¬
cinian is equally interefted in getting rid of this ;
which Dr. Prieftley plainly difeovers, in his Letter to a
Uhilofopbical Unbeliever , Part II. Pref. p. xiii. where,
without any attempt to argue the point, he gives us
merely his own opinion of the fubjeCh ££ I believe the
<£ facred writers,” fays he, ££ to be men of probity;
££ but neverthelefs men, and confequently fallible, and

l “ liable

145

NOTES TO SERMON III.

ec liable to mljlake with refpetft to things, to which
(C they had not given much attention, or concerning
cc which they had not the means of exact information ;
“ which I tale to be the cafe , with rei'pect to the ac-
cc count which Mofes has given of the creation and fall
6i of man” The Jews are guilty of a prejudiced fepa-
ration of the two Covenants, when they unreafonably
deny that their Law is typical. See Lejlle’s Method
with the Jews, p. 78. fol. edit.

There is alfo a fet of Geological Deifts, who openly
affert the independence of the two Covenants ; having,
as they think , good ground to difpute the Mofaic ac¬
count of the creation, of the deluge, &c. In order to
render their opinions palatable , they affure the world,
that Chriftianity has nothing to do with thofe chapters
of the book of Genefis, in which thefe fa6ts are re¬
corded. See Difcourfes V. and VI.

While fuch motives exift then for inducing men to
confider the two Teftaments as feparable, it may be
well to repeat the admirable caution of Bifhop Warbur-
ton. “ I reply then,” fays he, i( that it will admit of
no difpute, but that if they may have liberty of in-
iC venting two chimeras , and of calling one Judalfm , and
“ the other Chrijllanlty , they will have a very eafy vic-
tory over both.” This is an old trick, and has often
been tried with fuccefs : but fure the Dei ft is not to
obtrude his own inventions for thofe religions he en¬
deavours to overthrow. Much lefs is he to beg the
quejlion of their falftty ; as the laying it down that the
Jezuljh and Chrljllan are two independent religions cer¬
tainly is ; becaufe Chrijllanlty claims its titles of divi¬
nity from and under JudalJ'm. If therefore Deljls will
not , yet Chrljllans mujl of neceffity take their religion as
they find it : and if they will remove infidel objections
to either religion, they muft reafon on the principle of
dependency ; and while they do fo, their reafonings will
not only be juft and logical, but every folution, on fuch
a principle, will, befides its determination on the parti¬
cular point in queftion, be a new proof of the divinity
of both in general ; becaufe fuch a relation, connexion,
and dependency between two religions of fo diftant pe¬
riods, could not poffibly come about but by Divine
provifion. For a Deift therefore to bid us remove his

“ ob*

NOTES TO SERMON Ill.

147

tc obje&ions on the principle of independency, is to bid
f' us prove our religion true on a principle, that implies
e‘ its falfehood : the New Teftament giving us no other
idea ot Chriftianity than as of a religion dependent on,
“ connefted with, and the completion of Judaifm
Divine Legation of Mofes, book v. §.5.

Page 1 19. note (7),

Lor yet can it ever point out to him what will he effica¬
cious to redee?n him from Jin and death. ] Porphyry, that
great enemy to Chriftianity, confefled that no iyftem of
phiiofophy had fupplied him with a method of delivering
men's fouls. Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. x. c. 32. In this
then moft efpecially the utility of Revelation conftfts,
and upon this ground we may reafonably prove the
truth and divinity of the holy Scriptures by Origen's
left : ro yap ev rdv Svo 8s7 c rs vapodefowhsai ett) rovruiv rdv
ypcupdv fj on sx. sin QaOTfvEvroi, arts) ex. si n dnpsXigoi, dp vito-
XauXavei o ciitip-op, f dp Vippop 7ra,pa$E%a<rSaj, on etCeI ektiv d<pe-
dsowevroi e'unv. Philocalia, c. xii. Thofe who will
not acknowledge redemption to be neceffary, are not
qualified to judge of the utility of Chriftianity.

Page 120. note (8).

But to affert , that in the mere morality of the Gofpel
conjijls the whole of Chriftianity, mujl he either a gr oj s mil-
conception, or a moft perverfe mifreprefentation of matters.^
All, fays Rouffeau, [Letters from the Mountains, Letter
III.) that we ought to believe infpired, is what relates to
our duty ; for to what purpofe fhould God give the reft
by infpiration ? I anfwer ; our duty is founded, in the
Gofpel of Chrift, on our hopes . God has been pleafed
to make his fervice perfect freedom . We are no longer
fervants under the Gof pel, we are heirs of the promifes ;
joint-heirs with Chrift in the kingdom of heaven. To
know our duty from infpiration is a great fecurity; but
to know our profpects of forgivenefs, and the promifes
of pardon through Chrift, from infpiration, is a founda¬
tion for the moft glorious hopes and moft comfortable
encouragements. God might have given us no more
than rules of practice; but the do£lnnal words of comfort
are of the moft intrinfic value, Thofe who are difpofed to

l 2 regard

148

NOTES TO SERMON II.

regard duty before dohlrine, would do well to confult an
admirable note to Bifhop Burgefs’s Sermon on the Di¬
vinity of Chrift ; where he thews, that 66 to object that
c£ practical duties are more important than religious
cc opinions, is foreign to the fubje<St, and implies the
cc denial of what is not denied. It is fruitlefs to en-
“ quire which of two duties be the more acceptable,
C( where both are indifpenfable; and dangerous to form
cc comparifons of two indifpenfable duties, where the
cc preference of one tends to the depreciation of the
u other.”

Page 12 1. note (9).

If we will not be informed of thefe matters hiflorically —
we muft be contented to be ignorant .] The learned Arch-
bifhop King fays indeed, that, though there had been
no hiftory of the fall of man, we fhould have had
a proper anfwer to make to the infidel ; fince though
the mifery and corruption of mankind is really la¬
mentable, yet it is not fo great,, but that it may be re¬
conciled with the good Providence of God. This may
be fo; but it is much better not to have to rely on hu¬
man Reafon to determine fuch a point for the world in
general, for Reafon will always find fomething to op-
pofe to Reafon : and however clear the anfwer might
appear to the Archbifhop, he muft have known, from
the difpofition of Bayle, whom he was anfwering, that
nothing Ihort of an hiftorical account of matters could
fatisfy the fcruples of a Manichean.

Page 1 23 . note (10).

JVbat intimation be gave him of bis condition a?id future
dejliny ; or whether any fuch intimation was ever given T)
This laft is in fa6t the great enquiry. Mr. Hume’s ar¬
guments to ' prove that we cannot prefume ever to
reafon or even to enquire concerning what has been, or
may be ; that is, (to ufe his own words) 66 in regard to
“ the origin of worlds, and the fituation of nature,
(i from and to eternity ;” do not at all preclude us from
the enquiry, whether a Revelation has been made. A
Revelation accompanied with fuch circumflances as
contribute to clear up the moral doubts that muft
otherwife neceffarily perplex us in our paflage through

life.

NOTES TO SERMON III.

149

life, and fupported and confirmed by proofs affedting the
fenles, or capable of being judged of and appreciated by
Reafon, muff needs become one of thofe events, not
only fubjedl to, but imperioufly demanding our notice
and examination. Mr. H. would certainly not pre¬
clude enquiry and examination in the cafe of the Pagan
mythologies ; the mere attempt to impofe them on the
world, renders them fit fubjedts of enquiry. The quel-
tion is not, as Mr. Hume would infinuate, how does
God adt, or will God adt, feparate from the vifible works
of his hands; but whether God has, or has not, operated
in an extraordinary manner to enlighten and inftrudt
the world. We ftill appeal to fads, not to metaphyjics.

Page 1 24. note ( 1 1 ) .

If not as an infrument of happinefs univ erf ally , yet as
the indifpenfablc dijlindion of the high rank we hold in the
fcale of being. ] Though the fcale of being may be liable
to objedtions, when confidered as the caufe and occafion
of the prefent exigence of evil; (fee Note 1.) yet that a
fcale of being prevails we cannot queftion. Bayle,
who contends that the dodtrine of free-will is deroga¬
tory to the honour of God, ventures to affirm, “ that
“ Adam and Eve would have looked upon God’s re-i
(C flraint to keep them from falling, as a new favour, as

great as the precedent one of free-will.” Note M. art.
Pauliciens. How differently does Rouffeau judge of the
gift of free-will ! a Murmurer de ce que Dieu ne l’em-
“ pechepas de faire le mal,c’efl murmurer de ce qu’il la fit
“ d’une nature excellente, de ce qu’il mit a fes actions la
“ moralite qui les ennoblit, dece qu’il lui donna droit a la
“ vertu.” Emile tom.iii.51. And in another place he ex-
preffes himfelf much more ftrongly, where he obferves,
that, without the chance of moral evil, man would be no
better than the angels; tc et fans doute,” he adds,
“ l’homme vcrtueux fera plus qu’eux.” Liv. iv. And
certainly he is right as far as regards the evil angels.
See 1 Cor. vi. 3. The good angels Mr. Bayle fuppofes
not to be free, by way of perplexing thole who affert
free-will to be by its abufe the caufe of evil; but this
is to fuppofe free-will muft be abufed : which is for
from being the cafe. See note 90. p. 241. King’s Ori-

l 3 gin

NOTES TO SERMON III.

J5°

gin of Evil, 4to edit, and note 93. p. 247. Indeed the
true object of man’s free-will feems to be, that he fhould
be capable of praife, reward, and approbation in the pre¬
fence of God ; and which the Protoplafls might have
merited by prej'eYving their innocence ; for they would
have refembled Milton’s e< inviolable faints,” Par. Loft ,
b. vi. whofe

Cubic phalanx firm, advanc’d entire,

“ Invulnerable, impenetrably arm’d ;

<e Such hisrh advantages their innocence
“ Gave them above their foes, not to have fund,

<e Not to have difobey d."

And it is certainly reafonable what Juft in Martyr fays

of the poftibility of moral evil ; a yap dv iy hirauverov eSlv
£i ex ye £7/ agtyorspa (xaxiav xa) dpslrjv) rpsrtso'Sai, xa) Svvuuuv
fl%£. 'Pro Chriftianis Apol. 1. See alfo his 2 d Apol. p. 63.
edit. Sylburg.

The athei ft i cal Author of the Syfleme de la Nature
fays, the fyflem of the free-will of man feems only in¬
vented to put it in man’s power to offend God, and to
vindicate the latter from all blame on account of the
evil committed by man, through the abufe of the fatal
gift (la liberie funefte) he had bellowed on him. Rut
the circumflance of the Tree of Life in the Mofaic ac¬
count plainly proves, that man’s offence, and the evil
confequences thereof, were not more in the contempla¬
tion of the fupreme Legiflator, when he gave the law,
than his ftridl obedience and the bleftings flowing there¬
from, and which might have been as well the fruits of his
liberty. M. Holland’s excellent remark upon this objec¬
tion of the Syfteme de la Nature is as follows; e( Un bien
cc dont on peut abufer, mais dont le bon ufage mene in-
failliblement an bonheur, n’eft point un prefent funefte ,
cc et ne le devient que par notre propre faute. P. 65.
P. II. See alfo Clarke on the Attributes, p. 123; where he
maintains, that, if liberty is not a perfection in man,
though liable to abufe, it would follow, that a ftone
muft needs be more perfect than a man, infomuch as it
wants liberty, reafon, and knowledge, through which
alone a man does certainly become capable of mifery.

But it is never fufficiently confidered by thofe who
objedt to the abufe of free-will, as being a fufficient fo-
lution of the origin of evil, that, according to the Scrip¬
tures,

NOTES TO SERMON III.

*5*

lures, it was not abufed, but in exprefs con tradition to
God's command ; and certainly St. Thomas argues rea-
fonably, 44 Si minifter facial aliquid contra mandatum
44 domini, hoc non reducitur in domirium dent in cau-
44 fam. Et dmiliter peccaturn, quod liberum arbitrium
44 committit contra prseceptum Dei, non reducitur in
44 Deum ficut in caufam.” Summa , Part. II. QuaefL
Ixxix. Art. i. Judin Martyr fays that Plato borrowed of
Mofes the following remark, in regard to the origin of
moral evil ; that man’s own choice renders him the
caufeof evil, but God is faultlefs ; Ahioc EA oydvs, ©so; o
avodnoc. Apol. ad Ant. P. p. 63. and the palkige of
Mofes referred to certainly bears him out; Da rtpb 7 rpoay
wits as rb aya&bv xcti ro ytaxov’ sxA s^ai ro *a.yotQov. What
Judin Martyr further fays in the fame place on the lub-
jedt of free-will is alfo much to the purpofe^ See be-
fides the anfwer to the VIII th Quedion ad Ortaodoxos ,
attributed to Judin Martyr ; a fpurious work probably,
but very ingenious. Confult alfo Bifhop Stillmgjleet s

Ori fines Sacr. B.iii. chap. 3. §• vi.

44 The permiffion of evil,” lays Dr. Price, in his ad¬
mirable remarks on Dr. Priedley’s drange Icheme ot
Fatal ifm and Materialifm, “ is to be accounted for
44 chiefly, by the impoffibility of producing the greased
44 good," without giving a&ive powers , and allowing
44 fcope for exercidng them.” Add, that without the
freedom of the human will, God could have been no
moral governor, or have difplayed any of the peifefhons
of judice, mercy, and the like: fee Clarke s Sermons , vol.

v. p. 91.

Page 128. note (12).

JSfot derived from fuch deities as Jupiter and Apollo
T l sv voos ravTce atfoycpivaiTO o Zsvg , rj o Ati'oAAwv, 13 rig aXXog
p.xveixbg 0soV ; lays Maximus Tynus m regard to the
very queftion of the origin of evil. ’Axjcrwpv, he goes
on, rdv 7 tpopry* A P/ovrosi (it is Jupiter that addrclfes the

Gods;)

\Q ttottoi, oJov $7) vv Sss; fiporo) ambxvrar

. . tt t ’ > »/ . . r>\ \ ’ X

Ep rjixsouy yap (pan xax sggsvai' oi os xai avroi

'Esdriv draaljaXlxcriv virlp taopov aX yd £%a<n.

r‘ ' Horn. Od. a. 33.

Max. Tyr. Bijfertat. xxv.

L 4

'Page

1 5*

NOTES TO SERMON III.

Page 128. note (130

Without fuch an explanation of matters , world is g

myfiery &?c.] “ The world, inftead of being, as the
6t vanity of fome men has taught them to aflert, a la-
c? byrinth of which they hold the clue, is in reality full
“ of enigmas, which no penetration of man has hitherto
“ been able to folve.” Godwin . We grant this to Mr.
Godwin. It is God holds the clue, and man can know
no more, in regard to many moft important points,
than what God is pleafed to reveal to him. It would
be well it Dei/ls and Free-thinkers would attend tq
this.

sermon

SERMON IV.

EcCLESIASTICUS XV. 12.

Say not thou , God hath caufed me to err \ for he hath no

need of the fnful man .

In my laft Dilcourfe I endeavoured to fhew,
that however highly we may be difpofed to
eftimate the faculty of human Reafon, and
whatever advantages may have accrued of
late, from the progrefs and advancement of
human knowledge, towards the due exercife
and application of its powers ; and laftly,
whatever importance we may be inclined to
allow to metaphyfical enquiries, where the
fubjedt is fuitable, and certainly attainable;
there are fome queftions connected with
theology, and particularly thofe that relate
to the moral government of the world, which
are wholly incapable of being folved by fpe-
culative reafoning. Such are indilputably thofe
that regard the origin of man , and the ori¬
gin

*54

SERMON IV.

gin of evil. And therefore, that if the
Scripture account of thefe two moft impor¬
tant and interefting events is fabulous, fo
far from our deriving any fatisfaclion from
the detection of Rich an impofture, the world
could only become, from Rich a circu al¬
liance, a greater myftery to us than ever.

The particulars of the account may to
fuperficial enquirers appear allegorical (*)*
becaufe the prefent appearances of things
might be defcribed under Rich figures. But
we ought to remember, that, in looking for
the origin of evil in the Bible, as a revela¬
tion from God, of the firft beginning of
things, it is not a dejcription of prefent ap¬
pearances, but an explanation , we are in
fearch of. We do not want to know, in the
way of description, that man is liable to
temptations; but, in the way of explanation ,
why there was a tempter: — that the laws
of God have been univerfally infringed; but
what law was firft broken, and how man
became capable of tranfgrefting any law of
God ? — that death is an event common to
all; but how it became fo ? Thefe are fa<fts
and events, certainly not capable of being
explained by allegory; and a figurative re-

prefentation

SERMON IV.

*55

prefentation of Rich matters Is altogether
ufelefs.

Yet they muft appear, when duly con-
Rdered, to be of Rich awful importance
to us, that if man could be fuppofed to have
ever had any claim upon his Maker, he
might, I think, moft reafonably have ex¬
pected to have been either hiltorically or
fupernaturally informed of the frft beginning
of things ; that is, by fome mode of commu¬
nication, more certain and intelligible than
through the medium of the vifible works of
nature. Thefe may ferve to difclofe to us
the power, and the wifdom, and the majefty
of God ; but they cannot inform us of his
will and dejign in the creation of man . It is
written, fays the great Lord Bacon, “ Cceli
“ enarrant gloriam Dei,” “ The Heavens de-
“ clare the glory of God but it is not
written, “ Cceli enarrant voluntatem Dei.”
His will and pleafure with regard to man
muft be fought for elfewhere ; de illis pro-
nuntiatur, “ ad legem et tejlimonia a.”

And yet, wdien Reafon lhall have feduced
us to difcard Revelation, Ihe has no appeal to

a De Aug. Sclent, lib. ix.

make,

t$6

SERMON IV.

make, but to the volume of nature . This*
we are ftill told, with the utmofl confidence,
is fully fufficient for our inflruclion, not only
in all virtue and godlinefs of living, but in
the only true religion, and the worfhip due
to the Creator. And we are told befides,
with a manifeft infinuation that Chrifiianity
is defective in this refpecl, that the volume
of nature is univerfally legible . It may
be well therefore to record, as an event pe¬
culiarly connected with this age of Reafon,
and the more inftruclive on this account,
that a view of nature, in the very lame pe¬
riod of time, in the fame country, amidll the
fame advantages and difadvantages of culti¬
vated fociety, has but lately made a pro-
feffed Theifl of one of the molt popular writ¬
ers of the Continent, and an Atheifl of a fe-
cond. Chriftians may differ as to the inter¬
pretation of the language of Scripture ; but
none deny the finger of God in it : whereas
in this cafe it appears that a clofe ftudy of
the volume of nature, a philofophical con^
fideration of the whole fyflem, metaphyfi-
cal, phyfical, and moral, terminated in athc-
ifm (2). The cafe is undeniable. Even an
Atheifl mull here be believed on his word.

Had

SERMON IV.

*57

Had not the author of The Syjlem of Na¬
ture b, to which I allude, been a confirmed
Atheift, it is impoffible he could have writ¬
ten, much more have publifhed, fuch a work:
indeed he claims to be believed upon this
very ground c.

This furely will not be received as an un¬
important digreflion, when it ferves fo flrong-
ly to fliew the fallibility of human Reafon,
upon fuch fubje&s; and when we know be¬
tides, which is true, that the work above men¬
tioned, which is argumentative from begin¬
ning to end, appeared at the very time when,
of thofe confederate with the author in the
overthrow of all revealed Religion, one very
eminent writer d was infilling upon the full
fufficiency of natural Religion, as well for
inflru&ion in the worfhip due to God, as in
the conduct and regulation of our own lives;
while another6 was alTerting of the book of

b Published under the name of Mirabaud. The real author
is generally fuppofed to have been Diderot.

c “ Si ce Dieu tout-puiffant eft jaloux de fes prerogatives—
(t comment permet-il qu’un mortel comme moi ofe attaquer fes
“ droits, fes titres, lbn exiftence meme ?” Ch. iii. part. ii.
d Voltaire.

e Roufieau, Emile , tom. iii.

Nature,

SEE. M O N IV.

15?

Nature, that “ none were excufable for neg-
“ feeling to ftudy it, becaufe it fpeaks to all
conditions of men, a language intelligible
“ to every mind and that “ whoever could
“fay, there is no God, rnuft be a fallifier,
“ or infane and while here at home,
the author of the Age of Rea/on wms confi¬
dently alluring us, that “ the vifible creation
“ is the only word of God, which every man
“ can read, and which reveals all that is ne-
“ ceflary for man to know of Godf.”

But this is mere fophiftry : there is nothing
more effential to our forming correct notions
of the Deity, than that we fiiould be pro¬
perly inftruded refpecting the origin of evil:
and that we are not to expect to derive finch
inftru&ion from a mere view of the vifible
creation, befides the inftances adduced above,
is evident from the great diverfity of opinions
that have prevailed upon this fubject ; many
of which, fo far from ferving to elevate our
thoughts to an independent Being, or to a
fupreme moral Governor of the world, have
a manifefl: tendency to rob the Deity of both
theie attributes. For as it would feem im-

f ^ge °f Rcaf on, pp. 26, 27.

poffible

SERMON IV.

*59

poflible to reconcile the falfe lyftems of an¬
tiquity with the independence of the Su¬
preme Being ; fo I think it would be equally
impoffible to bring the modern ly Items to
accord with his moral government of the
world.

The Socinians, and modem Unitarians, as
they ftyle themfelves ( 3 ) , deny, as is well
known, the exigence of an evil Being; and
will not receive the common interpretation
of the Scriptures, in regard to the tempta¬
tion and fall of man. The tranfgreffion of
our firft parents, according to the latter efpe-
cially, as fet forth in a very recent publi¬
cation6, proceeded, not from the violation
of one plain, eafy, and intelligible reftric-
tion, the compliance with which might
as fully have eftablifhed their freedom of
will, and conftituted them moral beings, as
their difobedience and tranfgreffion ; a re-
Itriction fo communicated as to be their in-
ftru&ion and fecurity, rather than a fnare to
them : but, as the publication alluded to
fets forth, from “ the feljifh , jealous , malig -

g Lmdfcy on the Divine Government , 1S02. See p. 215.

nanty

SERMON IV,

160

<c 7iant , cruel, impure , envious, fraudulent s
“ ambitious defires” implanted in them. This
is the prefent Socinian opinion of the origin
of moral evil ! Every corrupt defire and bafe
principle that can be thought of, implanted
in our firft progenitors by God himfelf ! Can
finch a reprefentation of matters be thought
confident with God’s attributes of mercy
and goodnefis ? Is not this to fay, in the very
word fenfe of the expreflion, that “ God
tc hath caufed us to errh?”

And what other interpretation can we
put on the reafonings of thofe modern re¬
formers, who ftill contend fio earneftly for
the doctrine of neccffity P Never was this
dodtrine carried to fo great an extent as it
lias been of late : we are confidently told,
that there is no operation of the mind or
body, that can be free. We are not free to
act, nor free to choofe, nor free to deliberate
about our choice, nor free to will whether
we fliall deliberate or not(4). Our judg¬
ments, and our feelings, and our molt hid*

h Compare Mr. Hume’s notions, as admirably fet forth in
Bp. Hornes Letters on Iiifidelity , Letter V.

den

SERMON IV.

i6i

den fentiments are all alike fubjedt to the
law of neceflity 1 ; and to pretend to be free,
we are told, is to pretend to ail without
motives \ According to the moll modem
lyllems, we are fuch mere machines, that
one writer has even ventured to allure us \
that, in the cafe of murder, “ the alTalTm can
“ no more help the murder he commits,
“ than the dagger can, which he em-
“ ploys.” (5) That is, for it is fo explained,
that the caufes and motives, that determine
the one, are as neceflary and irreliftible as
thofe that determine the other.

It is in vain to plead any diftinilion be¬
tween rational and mechanical motives (6) ;
in the modern lyftems all motives are alike
mechanical in their operations, and mind is
univerfally as paffive as the dulleft matter01 :
indeed the foul itfelf is conlidered, by one

1 See Priejileys Illuftr aliens , pp. 287, 288. Syjiime de la Na¬
ture , &c.

k PoL Jufuoe , b. iv. c. 7. and Priejileys Free Difcnjfion of
the Doftrin.es cf Materialifm. Dr. Price’s anfwer was, that he
could conceive no aflertion more groundlefs.

1 Godwin, Pci. JuJi. p. 6 89. Compare Letters on Infidelity ,
before cited. Lett. V.

m “ Mind is an agent in no other fenfe than matter is an
“ agent.” Godwin, Pol. Jvfi. vol. ii. 317.

popu-

i6z S E R M O N IV.

I ,

popular writer, as altogether material n. We
are not 1 offered to appeal to Scripture to
decide for us, nor to common fenfe, or com¬
mon feeling: for the Chriftian Revelation
would, we are told, have been openly ad¬
apted to the dodtrine of neceffity, had the
bulk of mankind been philofophers ° J And
when it is admitted and granted to us, that
all men have a confcioufnefs of a power to
do what they will, we are taught to look
upon this only as a deception (7); a decep¬
tion fo ill managed indeed, that while na¬
ture is faid to have defigned to impofe upon
men in general, the has inadvertently given
to fome fagacity enough to fee through the
impofture p.

No circumftances of character or difpofi-
tion(8), no cultivation of good habits, or
encouragement of evil ones, can be fuffered
to make any difference between the virtuous
and the wicked, as necejfary beings ; they
are equally propelled by motives, over which
they have no power, and governed by caufes
the molt certain and irrefiftible. Inftead of

Priefiley: 0 See Pnejiley s Free Difcujfion, See.

p See Beattie on Truth , p, 313.

SERMON IV.

163

being in any inftance the authors or begin¬
ners of any events whatfoever, to ufe their
own expreiiions, men are only “ the vehi-
“ cles through which certain caufes ope-
“ rate’.” The very firit principles of Reli¬
gion are turned again!! us ; laws founded on
rewards and punilhments, we are told, muji
infer, that fuch motives have a regular and
uniform influence on the mind, and there¬
fore eftablifli the doctrine of neceflity r. But
furely, if this reafoning is right, the com¬
mon courfe of events muft appear to be in
open contradiction to it ; for how could pun-
ilhment itfelf ever .become necefliiry, if the
mere dread of it was fuflicient, as a reftrain-

v t,

ing motive, to prevent tranlgreflion ? How
could fome incur punifliment, and others not,
it the motives had an uniform influence ?
And how, after all, could any exped to be
punifhed by a moral Being, for addons alto¬
gether neceflary and unavoidable ?

But the numberlefs inconflftencies to be
met with in the works I have in view, would

q PoVit. JuJl. b. iv. c. 8. or as Diderot express it, “ Inflru-
rf mens paffifs entre Ies mains de ia neceffite.” Syjlime de la
Nature , ch. vi.
r Humes EJfays.

m 2 amply

164

SERMON IV.

amply ferve to Ihew, how difficult it is by

any arguments to fupport a fyftem fo en-

tirely in oppofition to our common fenti-

ments and common feelings. Such incon-

fiftencies it would be ealy to point out, and

they might be infilled upon with confidera-

ble effedl, if the cafe required it: but’ there

is one inconfiftency, into which all thele

writers have fallen, which I think may well
ferve us as a fecurity againll the bad efFedls
to which the dodtrine naturally leads. For,
exclufive of the falfe notions it mull tend to
give us of the Deity, as moral governor of
the world, I know no danger fo great to be
apprehended from this lyftem, as that very
obvious one, of fetting men entirely free
from every fenfe of refponfibility. To ex¬
pect to be punifhed by a good God, for ac¬
tions which he himfelf is fuppofed to have
rendered as neceflary and determinate as the
revolutions of the liars, or the falling of
heavy bodies, if not contrary to the fyftems
of modern philofophy, mull aftu redly be al¬
lowed to be entirely contrary to the plained:
dictates of common fenfe and common rea-
fon.

It may be wre!l therefore to notice, that

none

SERMON IV.

l65

none of the modem advocates of this doc¬
trine allow us to draw fuch a conclufion (9);
they even go fo far as to aifert, that their
iyftem is not only friendly to religion and
morality , but indifpenfably neceifary to both :
that, fo far from rendering us incapable of
offence, or not amenable to juftice, it is the
only iyftem under which we can become
either amenable to juftice, or capable of of¬
fence.

This may feem very extraordinary, and I
am far from thinking it capable of being
rendered in any manner intelligible : but it
is of this importance to us certainly, that it
reduces the queftion to a mere nullity. If
we can by any arguments be ihewn to be
capable of morality, and amenable to the
juftice of God or man, under a iyftem of
Itrid; neceftity, we are only brought to the
fame ftate, in which both common fenfe and
religion would place us. And while there
is certainly no advantage to be gained by
the exchange of one fyftem for the other,
we ihall do well to reflect, that, before we
can adopt the iyftem of fatalifm, we mufi
confent to abandon every diftinction which
now feems to raife us above brute matter,

m 3 and

1 66

SERMON IV.

and to elevate us to a refemblance of the
Deity ! a refemblance, it is true, of finite to
infinite ; but which may with reverence be
fpoken of, and which enters into the de-
fcription of the Mofaic cofmogony. Xnftead
of the plain and limple account of things,
which the Scripture gives us, that God was
pleafed, from the firft moment of man’s
creation, to fet before him, for his free
choice, (C good and evil, life or death5,” we
muft bring ourfelves to think fo unworthily
of our Maker, as that he hath neceffarily
“ caufed us to err/' as my text expreffes it;
and that a Being of infinite perfections, of
power infinite, of wifdom infinite, of goodnefs
infinite, “ had need of the finful man !”

Inftead of believing, as the Scriptures
teach us, that moral evil among men had its
origin in the wilful infringement of one tri¬
fling reftri&ion amidft the moft magnificent
profufion of favours, wre muft believe, at the
hazard of all the confequences that common
fenfe would naturally deduce from fuch a
fyftem, that moral evil proceeds from the
original conftitution of our nature, and is,

9 Deut. xxx. 13.

and

SERMON IV.

167

and ever has been, altogether inevitable.
We mull be contented to believe, that we
have no certain and authentic account of the
firft beginning of things, though fuch a con-
clufion muft compel us to acknowledge, that
we have no account more authentic of the
confummation and end. If moral evil was
not introduced into the world, as the Scrip¬
tures reprefent, we have no right, nor any
reafon to perfuade ourfelves, that it will be
abo] illied, as they propofe. For it is only
thofe who are prepared to believe, that “ in
“ Adam all died,” who may be allowed to
hope, that “ in Chrift all fhall be made
“ alive1.”

But to advert once more to the doctrine
of necefllty. Having ventured to pronounce
it to be an inconfiltency to conceive penal
laws to be reconcileable to a fyftem of fatal-
ifm, I fhall, for my own vindication, offer
one example, fuch as the time will allow
me, of the method in which one of the
greated opponents of free-will and free
agency11 would attempt to reconcile them.
He is fpeaking, it is true, only of the laws

1 1 Cor. xv. 22. u Diderot.

M 4

1 68

SERMON IV.

of man ; but if man can have a right to
punifh a neceftary being, knowing him to
be fuch, we can fcarce deny the fame power
to God. " If,” fays he, “ there fhall be
" found any perfons fo conftituted as to re-
“ Jift, or be infenfible to, the motives , which
" actuate the reft of mankind, they are not
“ fit to live among them ; and their rebel -
“ lions and unfociable wills not admitting of
" being modified fo as to become conforma-
“ ble to the general intereft, the fociety will
“ naturally oppofe them, and inflid pains
"and penalties on thefe beings, upon whom
" the motives prefented to them have not
" had the effeds that were to be exped-
" ed.” (IO)

This is the wTay in which w^e are taught
to acknowledge the juftice and propriety of
penal lawrs, under a fyftem of neceftitv. I
am much miftaken, if any expreifions could
have been feleded more thoroughly in con-
tradidion to the very fyftem itfelf. It is a
point however, which we muft leave to Fatah
ifis themfelves to fettle ; it has only been my
objed to Ihew, that in not fetting us free
from the operation of penal laws, and moral
reiponfibiiity, it is a fvftem from which w^e can

reap

SERMON IV.

169

reap no poffible advantage ; and as we may
never expect to be able by any arguments to
render it more reconcileable to our common
feelings than to the word of Scripture, even
as a philofophical fpeculation, it may be
confidered as ufelefs and unfatisfaclory.

The fame may I think be faid of the
doctrine concerning the materiality of the
human foul ; which, if granted, is now held
not to ftand in the way of our belief of its
immortality hereafter x, or of its capability
of happinefs or mifery ; or to be at all in
oppofition to the language of the holy
Scriptures. But if this be fo, it needs not, it
is plain, though ever fo capable of proof, in¬
terfere either with our hopes or our faith.
The queftion indeed has been revived of late
years, and the materiality of the foul ltrong-
ly infilled upon, for a particular end and
purpofe : a purpofe, which feems to betray
the caufe it was meant to fupport ; namely,
to overthrow the doctrines of the pre-exilt-
ence and divinity of Chrift, as prole lied by

1 See Hanky, p. 303. conclufion of the firft part of his 01-
fcrvatior.s on Man-, and PrkJUeys Difquifu'mns. See alfo Dr. hc-
land’s View of Deijlical Writers, vol. ii. p. 1 1. jth edit.

the

IJO

SERMON IV.

the eftablifhed Church of thefe realms (1( ).
But if thefe doctrines cannot be overthrown
by a critical examination of the Scriptures,
whence alone we profefs to deduce them,
we may furely well expert them to be proof
againft fuch metaphyfical and abftrufe dif-
quifitions as the one alluded to.

Though it muft ftill be acknowledged
then, that Reafon, unenlightened by Revela¬
tion, muft be wholly incompetent to folve
fuch queftions as thefe; yet it may be of
importance to us to be allured, that what¬
ever advances fhe may be fuppofed to have
made in other branches of knowledge, her
lateft fpeculations on the origin of evil, and
the moral government of the world, fo far
from tending to remove any exifting doubts
and perplexities, have been more than ever
uncertain and unfatisfadory ; ferving indeed
to determine nothing, except perhaps that
ft range contradidion, that men are capable
of being in a ftate of religion and morality,
under a courfe of things entirely incompa¬
tible with either ; for how can we be capa-
ple of morality, where every motive mult
have a determinate efled, and we are not
free to choofe between two ? And howr can

SERMON IV:

I7I

we be prepared to ferve and worth ip God,
as a good and gracious Being, when we are
taught to believe, that he has placed us in
this world, only “ to live in wickednefs, and
“ to fufFer, and not to know wherefore?”

And this incompetency of Reafon to cer¬
tify us of the truth of fuch important mat¬
ters, (an incompetency actually capable of
demonftration,) mull furely not only incline
us to fet but fmall value on fuch vain fpecu-
lations (I2), but difpofe us the more readily
to believe, that fomewhere or other the true
and authentic hiftory of the origin of the
world mull have been always preferred ;
that the hiftory of man, from his firft crea¬
tion, mull have been recorded; and that the
only queftion which really concerns us is,
where is the truth to be found ?

Now I believe thus much may be fafely
afterted, that if the Mofaic coftnogony is not
the true one, few will be found to contend
for any others that are extant; and therefore,
if I fhould appear to dwell longer on this part
of my fubjeA than is neceflary, I hope it will
be confidered, that every thing which re¬
lates to revealed Religion depends ultimately
on the authenticity of the Mofaic account

172

SERMON IV.

of the creation and fall of man, For, as to
the Chriltian Revelation, if we may trull to
the teftimony not only of Prophets and
Apollles, but of our Lord himfelf, it was
certainly not more deligned to carry us for¬
ward to the end of time, than backward to its
beginning ; the new revelation having con¬
tinual reference and relation to the old. A
connexion, I mult add, the more fit to be
infilled upon at prefent, becaufe, in fome
very recent tranfadlions on the continent, its
importance has been in the moll extraordi¬
nary manner difputed, and the authority of
the Pentateuch particularly called in quef-
tion.

I cannot conclude therefore this part of
my Lecture, without earned:] y exhorting
thofe of my hearers, who may be at all lia¬
ble to be led allray by the falfe philolbphy
of the times, not to differ themfelves to be
deprived of the ancient and venerable ac¬
count, which the Scriptures give of the firll
beginning of things, and more efpecially of
the origin of moral evil, till they have exa¬
mined carefully into every circumllance,that
can be expected to throw light upon the
fubject. It is not the hiltory of a fingle un¬
connected

SERMO N IV. j73

conne&ed event, or of a few fuch , as I re¬
marked before, but of many events, clofely,
and I may add marvelloujly connected. And
though it fhould feem to refemble, as an emi¬
nent Freethinker has aflerted of it y, “ thofe
“ fabulous accounts, which every nation
“ gives of its origin;” though it fhould he
“ full of prodigies and miracles;” though it
fhould “ give an account of a Rate of the
ie world, and of human nature, entirely dif-
“ ferent from the prefent z,” of “ our fall
u from that Rate ;” of the “ age of man ex-
“ tending to near a thoufand years ;” and of
“ the deflru&ion of the wTorld by a deluge;”
let us remember, that if it is a record of
that high authority, and that great anti¬
quity, which we fuppofe it to be, then thefe
are the very things wre might expect to find
in it : a Rate of the world certainly dif¬
ferent from the prefent, and a Rate of hu¬
man nature entirely fo, as well as of our fall
from it; for nothing lefs can account for the
prefent Rate of thefe things. Changes and

revolutions there mufl have been, or the

y Hume.

2 See Lei and' $ View of Defile al Writers t vol. ii. Letter xxviii.
p. yS.

work

1 74

SERMON IV.

work of God will appear to have been ori¬
ginally and radically imperfect. Prodigies and
miracles alfo we might ex peed to read of, if
we will but confider the Pagan accounts of
their own grofs idolatries ; by means of which,
without prodigies and miracles, the true God
would for ever perhaps have been excluded
from this world of his own making : and as
to the longevity of the patriarchal ages, and
the deftrudion of the world by a deluge,
they are not only fupported by other hiflori-
cal teftimonies of much repute, as is well
known a, but the latter efpecially is, as it is

mv intention to flrew in a future Difcourfe,

•/

in a very extraordinary manner confirmed
by phyfical obferyations.

a Vid. Jofeph. Antiq. Jud. lib. i. c. 3. Grotius de Veritate R.
Cbrijl. c. 16. and Dr. Adamss Anfwer to Hume. See alfo Fa¬
bers Horcs Mofaicee, vol. i. p. n 9- and I' ch‘ iv‘ on thc
Deluge.

NOTES

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

Page 154. note ( l ) .

THE particulars of the account may to fuperfcial enquirers
appear allegorical , &c.] All profane hiftories, which af-
cend fo high as to the origin of the world and of man¬
kind, are 16 fabulous and abfurd, and fo little to be re¬
garded as authentic in their prefent drefs, that we can¬
not be furprifed that thole who are difpofed to regard
the Mofaic cofmogony in the fame light as other an¬
cient hiftories, (hall look for fable, when it treats of fuch
remote and primaeval matters.

I have already admitted that an air of mytholo¬
gy runs through the Mofaic hiftory of the gene¬
ts and fall of man : but I have intimated at the lame
time, what is certainly the truth, that the firft origin
ot things mull; have been in every particular not only fo
different from, but in fome inftances fo coritrary to pre¬
fent experience, [fee Campbell on Miracles , pp. 212, 213.
and Wallace's various Profpedts of Mankind ,] that the
trued poffible account mujl to us have appeared mytho¬
logical. Nothing is more mythological to read of,
perhaps, than a miracle : but it is capable of pofitive
demon fixation, that the world could not have exifled
without many miracles . See Campbell as above.

ft may have been an ingenious device, and a very art¬
ful one, of the Pagans, to pretend to refolve their my¬
thologies into allegories; for nothing elfe could poffibly
excule the groflhefs and abfurdity of mod of them.
[See them admirably expofed for their attempts, by
Arnobius in his 5th book contr. Gentes .] But to fup-
pofe that there is no hiftory of the firft beginning of
things, but what is both mythological and fabulous , is,
on many accounts, exceedingly unwife, and contrary
to Reafon.

Much

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

17 6

Much ill, I apprehend, has arifen from an injudicious
manner of beginning our refearches. Many are too
apt to think, that it is only the veracity of Mofes that is
concerned in the real character and authenticity of the
firft three chapters of Gene (is; and they feem to regard
it as a matter of perfect indifference, whether he wrote
what is there written, of the origin of man and of evil,
mythologically, allegorically, or hiftorically ; whether
he was really the author of them, or only the colledtor
of antiquated traditions, and fanciful legends ; or whe¬
ther indeed he had any thing at all to do with them.
This was certainly the cafe with Dr. Geddes, and is
the cafe with many German commentators of the pre-
fent day, particularly M. Teller of Berlin, Eichhorn,
Heizelmann, Crugel, &c. who all agree in treating
the firft three chapters of Genefis as fabulous, but with
little agreement among themfelves in other refpedts.
Thus M. Teller thinks the fecond and third chapters
more ancient than the firjl, while M. Eichhorn thinks
the latter the moft ancient of the three ; a difference of
opinion which affedts M. Teller’s chief argument; who
contends, that the jirji chapter is allegorical , but the
others hieroglyphical , and for that reafon more an¬
cient. In fadt, they know nothing at all about them ;
which muft be the cafe with all who pretend to
judge of them, merely as the introduction to an ancient
book.

The true way for a Chriftian to confider the matter,
is to begin with the teftimony of our Saviour , and the
Apojiolic writers, to the truth of this very ancient ac¬
count of things. If we have any authentic informa¬
tion in regard to the end of the world, and the future
hopes and expedtations of man, it is unqueftionably
only in the Gofpel of Jefus Chrift ; in the Evangelical
hiftories and writings of the Apoftles ; in our Lord’s
own declarations, and the infpired evidence of his Dif-
ciples. Now if this information is u from above,"
f hall we fuppofe that our Lord himfelf and his holy
Apoftles were ignorant of man’s true beginning , or
would have purpofely and exprefsly connedted the hea¬
venly and fublime doctrines they had to communicate,
with a parcel of Chaldsean and Egyptian fables ? for fo
M. Teller regards them; M. Eichhorn, &c. Dr. Geddes
► • ' alfo,

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

177

alfo, and Dr. Prieftley; much to their difgrace, as
Chrijlians , at all events.

The more the Mofaic account may feem to us my¬
thological in ftyle and matter, the more cautious we
fhould be how we regard it as fuch, when we know of
a lurety, that not only St. Paul, but our Saviour re¬
ferred to it, in the molt folemn and ftrildng manner.
“ For as in Adam all die,” faith St. Paul, 44 even fo in
(( Christ fhall all be made alive!” 44 The firjl man
f£ Adam was made a living foul ; the laji Adam was
“ made a quickening fpirit.” 44 The firft man is of the
44 earth, earthy ; the laft man is the Lord from hea-
i( yen !” i Cor. xv. What fhould we think of St.
Paul, if, in this 1110ft folemn manner, he had ventured
to bring into comparifon, our Saviour and Prometheus,
or any other truly mythological perfonage ? Or,
when our blelfed Saviour reminds the Pharifees,
44 H ave ye not read, that he which made them in the
44 beginning, made them male and female ; and /aid,
44 For this caufe fhall a man leave father and mother,
44 and fhall cleave to his wife, and they twain {hall be
44 one flefh :” that he had no truer biliary in view than
a mere Oriental legend ? Let us remember alfo, that,
according to common ideas, and the ufual courfe of
things, this reference was to the moft mythological part ,
perhaps, of the whole relation.

When we fhall have fatisfied ourfelves of the mani-
feft unreafonablenefs, and indeed the grofs impiety, of
fuppofmg that our Saviour and his holy Apofiles could
make fuch folemn appeals to a mere mythological tale,
44 popular traditions and old fongs,” (as Dr. Geddes is
pleafed to call them,) let us confider what are the
circumfiances which render the Pagan mythologies in
general fo offenfive. Are they not, that they give us
very unbecoming notions of the Divine Nature, as well
as of the interference of Providence in the affairs of
'men ? But how do we find the Divine Nature repre-
fented in the reft of the Mofiaic writings, and the other
books of the Old Teftament ? moft of them certainly
written in times fo remote, as to be ftigmatized as
eminently rude and barbarous : moft of them the
works, according to Mr. Hume, of 44 an ignorant and
“ barbarous people, written in an age when they were

N 44 ftill

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

178

ftill more barbarous.” See his EJJays . “ Shall we

“ affert,” he goes on to fay, “ that in more ancient
“ times, before the knowledge of letters, or the dif-
(( co very of any art or fcience, men entertained the
“ principles of pure Theifm ? that is, while they were
“ ignorant and barbarous, they difcovered truth ?” EJ-
fays , vol. ii. 417.

The advocate for the infpiration of the Jewifh Scrip¬
tures might thank Mr. Hume for this remark. The
very remote and incomparable antiquity of the Bible
is not to be difputed : confult JoJ'ephus , Philo , Jujiin
Martyr , Grotius , Stilling fleets &c. &c. Neverthelefs
therein are to be found innumerable deferiptions. of
the Deity, not only the molt fublime, but the moft juft
and appropriate that can be conceived. “ Nous voyons
“ avec la plus grande certitude hiftorique,” fay the
Jews in their memorial to M. Teller, u que Moife
“ trouva deja chez les premiers peres de fa nation, comme
“ un heritage refpeftable , des dogmes purs , et des prin-
“ cipes de religion clairs et degages de toute Idolatrie,
“ et de tout Atheifme. Ces Patriarches avoient fur-
c( tout cherche a conferver la dodlrine d’un Dieu fpi-
“ rituel, imperceptible aux fens. Nous ne trouvons
cette doftrine dans la meme purete chez aucune au-
cc tre nation.” Mr. Hume thinks the truth could not
have been difcovered fo early as the times of Mofes :
the Jews of Berlin think they were difcovered much
earlier. Mr. Hume is not to be excufed for his want of
difeernment, or want of honefty, in pretending that the
Bible does not contain the principles of pure Theifm ;
the Pruffian Jews are not to be excufed for their dulnefs,
in not regarding fuch corredt ideas of the Divine Nature,
as a certain proof of the infpiration of the facred Writ¬
ings. What indeed Mr. Hume’s ideas of pure Theifm
were, it may be difficult to fay : but there is little doubt
that he would have objected to the facred books, as
Hr as they reprefent God to be infinitely fuperior to
mankind ; for this muft have the fault he cenfures, of
checking all rivalfbip and e?nulation on the part of man, to
the lofs of all the virtues that aggrandife a people , includ¬
ing particularly “activity, fpirit, courage, magnanimity,
“ and love of liberty.” Thefe qualities, it leems, are
only compatible with a religion, in which the gods are

conceived

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

279

conceived to be little better and little luperior to man*
as in all the Pagan fyftems. Another recommendation
the Pagan fyftems poftefs over the facred books, in Mr.
Hume’s idea ; they allow us uto be more at eafe in
iC our addreftes to fuch deities.” See his Natural Hijlory
of Religion y §.x. p.4^4; a workmore calculated to prove
the abfolute neceffity of revelation than almoft any I
ever perufed ; though certainly written with a defign
as oppofite aspofiible.

Jofephus, with great propriety, challenges his readers
to examine thoroughly into the matter, and to fay
whether Mofes had not invariably afcribed to the Deity,
not only his proper nature, but actions fuitable to
that nature; free from all the vanities and abfurdities
of the Pagan mythologies ; though he lived in times fo
remote, as to have been at liberty to invent, had he
feen fit ; C( for he lived,” fays he, full two thou-
i( fand years ago, a diftance of time to which the
“ poets dare not carry up the birth of their gods, the
£ adtions of their anceftors, or the eftabliftiment of
their laws.” The paflage is very remarkable. "Hfoj roi-

YVV 78; £YT£V%0fA£V8; 7(j1; /3t£Xl0i; 7 t CCpOCKCCXlV 7yV yV0U[AYjV ©SO>
7 TpOfTOOVSySlV, nai $0}UuA?SlV 70V YjpOS7£gOV N 0[/,od£7r)V, si 7rjv 7£
<£v7iv 0LV78 dfclcv; K0L7£v6rl7£, xsu ry duvd[j.£i rtpsic^coi; de) 7dg
tfpdfci; dv7sSyxst I1ASH2 KA0APON TON nEPI ATTOT
ir AAE AS AOTON THE riAP’ AAAOIS A2XHM0N02 MT-
0OAOriA2* K alroiys, 070v hr) pyxei ygovov kou T’ccXcaorriri,
7oXKrtv syjjov dJsiccv vj vsvS'jjv 7rA ooepAYW ysyovsv yap rtpo IraJj/
SiryiXiujv, s tp’ 070V alcvvo; 8$* ccvlouv ol 7 toirycx.) 70,5 ysvs -

csi; 7Ujv 0sa;v, ary lye 7a; 7wv dvQpwrfujy 'irpd^si;, y 78; yopou;
dvsvsyy.Bv lroA^(ray. Ant. Jud . lib. i. p. 3*

Notwithftanding this, Mr. Paine is pleafed to aftert,
in his Age of Reafon , (and I cannot forbear to record it,
as a ftanding reproach to his tafte and difcernment, and
no unequivocal fign of his great ignorance,) that C£ al-
(C moft the only parts in the book called the Bible, that
te convey to us any idea of God, are fome chapters in
<( Job and the xixth Pfalrri.” — c< I recoiled no other ;
(( thofe parts are true deiftical compofitions ; for they
<c treat of the Deity through his works ; they are
founded upon natural philolophy.”

But is God to be regarded o?ily as the Creator of the
uniyerfe ? merely as the efficient caufe of the vifible

N 2 • fcene

i80

MOTES TO SERMON IV.

fcene of things ? Have we nothing to do with his pro*
vidential government of the world, and the mode of his
exiftence ? Other Deifts are not fo eafily iatisfied : they
think it a great thing to be able to comprehend his moral
and metaphyfical attributes; unity Jpirituality, omnipotence,
ubiquity , infinity , and, above all, his goodnefs and mercy*
But ancient as the Bible is, and proud as modern Deifts
are of their firft principles of theology, there is not one,
of tliefe properties and attributes of the Divine Nature,
which is not duly ailigned to God in the writings of
Mofes and the Prophets, in fuch fublimity of language,
and with fuch force of expreftion, as, not only never
have been exceeded, but, in the opinion of fome of the
moft unexceptionable judges, never have been equalled.
See Lowth's Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, Left. I. Addi -
fans Evidences of the Chrifiian Religion . See Sir William
Jones's opinion in his Anniverfary Difcourfes at Calcutta;
Bifijop IVatfons Apology , pp. 136, 15 1, 208. and, for a
comparifon between the Hebrew and Pagan defcriptions
of the Deity, Richards's Bampton Lectures, Serm. VI.
Serm. VIII.

When we have fatisfied ourfelves that St. Paul and
others of the Apoftles, and even Jefus Chrift him lei f, re¬
ferred to the Mofaic cofmogony, as a true and literal
hiftory of the commencement of things — when we
have duly weighed and conftdered the exceeding great
abfurdity and impiety of fuppofing they could refer to
nothing better than a mythological legend — when we
have certified ourfelves that the beginning of the world,
of man, and of evil, muft have been fo entirely different
from the common courfe of things, and, as far as re¬
gards the creation of animals and vegetables, fo inde¬
pendent of all fecondary caufes, as to be, in every fenfe
of the terms, perfectly marvellous and miraculous —
when we have brought ourfelves to refleft, that,
ftrange and unufual as the account 'may feem, every
part of it is of fo great importance, that we could
not do without it, (for this I think demonftrable, in
refpeft to the origin of man, and the origin of evil — )
Then we may be prepared to examine more minutely
into the drift of the hiftory, and to appreciate the pe¬
culiar importance of the feveral incidents.

It would be impoftible to go through the whole, in

a note,

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

1S1

a note, already perhaps too long : but I {hall feleCt two
of the incidents, becaufe they are particularly impor¬
tant if true, and have been particularly expoled to ri¬
dicule on a fuppofition of their being falfe. The firft:
is the creation of woman ; the other, the law given to
the Protoplafts. The former is unqueftionably of great
importance, becaufe, as we have l’een above, our Sa¬
viour referred to it, and to fettle a very important point
in the laws of fociety. The fecond is very important, be¬
caufe no lefs than the introduction of fin, and fall of
the human race, and confequently the redemption of
mankind, are all intimately connected with it.

Firft then, in regard to the creation of woman. That
the fecondary caufes for the propagation of the fpecies
could not operate in the production of the firft man, or
the firft woman, is mod evident. But though it is a pecu¬
liar merit in the Mofaic cofmogony, that where fecond.
caufes could not be fuppofed to aCt, they are totally
kept out of fight ; yet in regard to the creation of man
and of woman, the l’acred Hiftorian has entered more
than in any other inftance into the modus operandi of
creation : and certainly not without reafon. How the
world in general was created, we need not be informed
as to the exaCt quomodo of its formation and arrange¬
ment : but it is not to be concluded therefore, that we
need qpt have been inftruCted in the quomodo of man' s
creation, or in that of the woman ; for the terrejlrial na¬
ture of man’s body, as diftinCt from the foul, and on
Which many important theological queftions are known
to depend, is thereby particularly {hewn, and the iden¬
tity of nature in the two fexes exprefsly demonftrated ;
the former being neceftary not only to the due appre-
herjfion of man’s nature, but the vindication of God’s
power and providence; for the terreftrial nature of man’s
body became afterwards a leading dogma in profane
philofophy ; whereupon the philofophers always en¬
deavoured to fix the origin of evil: fo that it would
feem to be moft reafonable that this diftinCtion in the
human nature fhould have been particularly noticed.
For to {hew that God made man of the duft of the ground,
was a vindication of his power over matter, to which
often has been attributed a neceftary and indepen¬
dent exiftence, which in after-times was particularly

n 3 the

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

183

the doctrine of the Stoics, as is well known. But to re¬
turn to the origin of woman.

In the creation of the human fpecies, there was. a
foundation to be laid for the future fociety of the dif¬
ferent members of it, and for the moral as well as phy-
fical union in particular of the two fexes. Of two ra¬
tional beings, to which fhould the dominion of the
new world be affigned ? Was Adam to invefi himfelf
with the fuperiority in virtue of his drength and man¬
hood ? and was he to receive woman at the hands of
his Maker, as he received the fowls of the air, and
the beads of the field, as a being altogether inferior
and diftind ? Was it not better that every foundation
of endearment fhould be laid at the fird ; and, to obvi¬
ate jealoufy and rivalry, and much more any undue
affumption of fuperiority, that there fhould be an
equality of rights, and the fame manifed identity of na¬
ture, as was to be provided for in the after propagation
of the fpecies ? Kpardv rov * Avfya, ryjz fays Plu¬
tarch, a’% cuf deo'rfOT'YjV dX'k ’kYXHN 2I2MA-

TOS, erup7ra$8vra xcd o’vpitetpvY.OT’a. ry evvoia. A fentence,
fays Wolladon, [ Religion of Nature , 159.] which ought
to be written in letters of gold !

And that there was fuch occadon for marking th»
identity of nature in this indance, we may particularly
conclude from the reafoning of Mr. Hume. “ For,”
fays he, “ were there a fpecies of creature intermingled
“ with men, which, though rational, were podfeffed of
“ fuch inferior drength, both of body and mind, that
“ they were incapable of all red dance, the neceffary con -
“ fequencc , I think, is, that we fhould be bound by the
“law of humanity, to give gentle ufage to thefe crea-
“ tures ; but fhould not, properly fpeaking, lie under any
“ refir amt of jujhce with regard to them ; nor could
“ they poffefs any right or property excludve of fuch
“ arbitrary lords.” EJJays, vol. ii. 256, 257.

It could not be of importance to the brute irrational
animals to be certified of this identity of nature fo par¬
ticularly ; [fee the Summa of St. Thomas, P. I. Quaeft.
xcii. art. 2.] but the phydcal indin&s and appetites,
which would guide them to what was right, were not
likely in mankind to be the foundation of all thofe
moral virtues, and chade affe&ions, on which the

good

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

183

good of fociety in general, and the happinefs of private
life more particularly, were to depend : and therefore
I look upon the whole to be fully and adequately ex¬
plained in the 23d and 24th verfes of the fecond chap¬
ter, to which our Saviour alluded in the paflage al¬
ready referred to. Matth. xix. 6. fee alfo Mark
x. 6, 7. There I find the divine inftitution of marriage,
and all the private virtues and charities flowing there¬
from : there I find ££ God’s bed gift to mankind;” that
union of fouls, and interefis ; that participation of pains
and pleafures ; which tend to heighten all the enjoy¬
ments, and mitigate all the forrows of life ; and which
expanding itfelf in the propagation, . nurture, aud edu¬
cation of children, lays the foundation for every com¬
fort and fecurity derivable from fociety.

Rut none of thefe things can have their proper
foundation in a mere fable. No allegory, no poetical
muthos , could poffibly ferve our purpofe. . Dr. Geddes
could derive all thefe things equally with ourfelves
from the Mofaic cofmogony : but in treating the latter as
a mere fable, he totally and entirely deftroys its ufe ;
befides contradi£ting St. Paul, and invalidating or ren¬
dering void his whole argument. 1 Cor. xi. 8, 9*

See, as to the peculiar appointment of woman’s crea¬
tion, Lcjlie’s IVorksy vol. i. 242. Theodor etus Ylgovoiccf,
Aoy. f Hi. Dr. Prief ley's Comp art f on of the Inftitution s of
MoJ'es and the Hindoos , p. 153. and Dr. Jamiefon s Hi/lory

of the Vent at each. . # .

I have dwelt the longer on this, becaufe it is almoft
alleged to be the very reafon of M. Teller’s infidelity, as
to the truth of the three firft chapters of Genefis; for he
thus excufes himfelf : uVoil& fur quoi il faut prendre
<£ parti, a moins de vouloir donner gain de caufe aux
(( railleries fines et grofjieres des ennemis de la Religion.
(( Combien de fois n’a-t-on pas tourne en ridicule la
“ code d' Adam ?” To which M. de Luc very properly
anfwers, “ Quand on ne fait pas meprifer le ridicule de -
“ raifonnable , on merite d’etre vi&ime;” and then pro¬
ceeds to ftate the extreme folly of pretending to object,
where we have no means whatever of deciding the
cafe : “ II eft evident qu’on ne fauroit rien affirmer ni
£C nier a priori lur la maniere de la creation, ioit en gene-
“ ral, foit dans aucune de fes parties.”

N 4 1 Pro“

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

184

I proceed now to the law given to the Protoplafls,
which has been regarded as hieroglyph ical, allegorical,
and wholly fabulous ; and which, if we were in all
cafes ignominioufly to give way to raillery and ridicule,
would be among the firlf parts of the Mofaic records
to be abandoned. That 44 the whole human race fhould
tc be condemned for eating an apple,’ is an old taunt,
and will, no doubt, perpetually be revived, becaufe it is
certainly according to the letter of the Scripture, except
indeed as to the abfurd and groundlefs defignation of
the particular fruit. The law is thought trifling : why
fo ? Can the wilful tranfgreflion of any exprefs com¬
mand of God be fo ? But what if murder, theft, adul¬
tery, or perjury, had been forbidden ? would not this
have been an ufelefs and unnecefiary fuggeflion of mo¬
ral diforder in a (late of perfedl innocence, which might
have been prelerved ? Befkles, how were any of thefe
crimes pofiible ? or how indeed, as hated already in
another place, could any of the laws of the Decalogue be
brought to apply to the fituation of the Protoplafls?
Thefe things are certainly not fufficiently thought of,
when men object to this particular part of the Mofaic
liiflory. Whatever was the law, the tranfgreflion of
Adam might be proved to be, a complication of fins. [See
Edwards’s PreJ'ervative againjl Socimanifm , Difc. II. p.
.34;] At events, it the offence be confidered as trifling,
it is a good remark which one author makes, that, 44 in-
44 head of contending againft God for ordaining the for-
44 feiture of what he gave them, for fuch a trifle of of-
44 fence, the proper argument is certainly againft our firfl
4‘ parents, for not fulfilling fuch areal trifle of obedience,
44 where there had been lucb magnificence of favour.’*
A ew Theory of Redemption, vol. i. 162. The fame au¬
thor in another place obferves, 44 Nor is it the leaft
44 lurprifing that immortality was forfeited by one of-
4’ fence, when the obfervance of one fingle circum-
44 fiance was the only thing required in order to its
44 prefervation.”

In lhort, when all the circumflances of the cafe are
fairly taken into account, (many of which cannot be
adverted to at prefent,) we fhall furely be brought
readily to acquielce in the opinion of the learned Bilhop
Bull, that 44 this precept to Adam was no fuch flight

44 and

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

i8j

“ and eafy precept as fome have fancied ; but was at
cc once a bridle to the delicioufnefs ol his fenfe, and a
“ check to the curiofity of his reafon ; a great experi-
<c ment of his felf-denial, and in general a call to the
“ divine life” — That it laid “ a far greater reftraint on
“ man’s rational appetite ; for the tree forbidden was by
“ God himfelf ftyled the tree of knowledge ; and it was
“ a motive that leduced Eve, that the fruit of it was
cc good to make one wife.” Sermons, vol. iii. 1087. 1089.
See alio the Summa Theologize of St. I homas, Part
III. Gtuceft. clxiii. Art. i.and Parad. LojL b. yii. 543.
b. viii. 323. u Oy xsvo7; £Tnr£v<ratj.£v ydfoic, o'joe dvatfoSeix-
*e rot; A oyoic, aAAa a sro~is Gels, xj Jyvaa si pf'sn, 79

“ rsQryon ' Juft. Mart. Dial, cum Tryphone.

Page I $6. note (2) .

In this cafe a clofe Jludy of the volume of nature , &c. ter¬
minated in Atheifm. ] It cannot be fuppofed that I mean
to infinuate, that a ftudy of nature is likely in general to
lead to Atheifm. I have adduced the fa£t alluded to,
only to (hew how incomparably fuperior the light of
Revelation is, to the cafual, variable, and often perverfe
deductions of Reafon ; and how indifpenfably necefiary
its authority is, to eftablilh the truth and certainty of
fome of the molt important principles of religion and
morality : even indeed, of the very being and exiftence
of God ! And as it is the principal object of thele Lec¬
tures to {hew, that, in this boafted age of Reafon, we are
not arrived at any greater certainty as to thole matters,
than heretofore, how can this be better proved than
from the declarations and concellions of Infidels them-
felves ? I have therefore thought it not amifs to {hew
whither Reafon may conduct us, when reftrained by no
authority, and fenlible of no luperior. And while \ ol-
taire, and Roufieau, and Helvetius ; Hume, Gibbon,
and Paine, have been endeavouring to convert men, as
they would term it, from Religion to Reafon, from
Chriftianity to Deifm, under a pretence that our Rea-
fon is lio;ht fufficient, and cannot fail to fecure us in al\
due obedience to God, and love to man, it maybe well
to know that their cotemporary, friend, and aftbeiate,
Diderot, thought himfelf able, by the very fame means

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

1 86

they would have adopted to convert a man from Chrif-
tianity to Deifm, to convert him further, from Deifm
to Atheifm , viz. a Jludy of nature , and an appeal to our
own feelings and judgment. For the requifites he in¬
fills on are exprefsly as follow : “ La reflexion ; de l’e^
“ tude, des connoiffances ; une longue chaine d’expe-.
(C riences ; Y habitude de contempler la nature , la fcience
<c des vraies caufes de fes phenomenes divers; de ies
u combinaifons, de fes loix ; des etres qui les compo-
(£ lent, et de leurs differentes proprietes — Pour etre
iC Athee , il faut 1’avoir Meditee /” Syjttme de la Nature >
ch. xiii. Part II.

Are not thefe the very qualifications which the Deift
would infill upon, as invariably fufficient to prove the
exigence and attributes of God? But how are men to be
expe&ed to agree in any conclufions to be drawn from
a view of nature, when Spinoza could fo exclude final
caufes, as to ridicule it as a childifh fancy to think,
that eyes were defigned to fee with, teeth to chew
with, the fun to give light, &c. &c. ? How are men to
be expelled to form corredl notions of the Deity with¬
out Revelation, when Mr. Hume infifts upon it, in his
Natural Hiflory of Religion, that polytheifm and idola¬
try mujl have been the primitive religion of uninfirutted
man ? when Lord Bolingbroke afferts, that ce the firft
<c true principles of all theology could not be efta-

blifhed till the manhood of philofophy ?” and when
Lord Shaftefbury could take the pains to arrange and
claffify the many different opinions men might come
to entertain concerning Providence, feparately or mix-*
ed ; as, fir ft, they might be fimply Theijls ; Atheijls ;
Po ly theijls ; Deemomjls : or thefe might be mixed ; as,
firft, Theijm with Dwmonijm ; fecondiy, D cEmonifm with
Polytheifm , &c. &c. See the whole in his Enquiry con -
cerning Virtue, Part I. §. 2.

Nor, if Voltaire, Helvetius, &c. had known what
they were about, could they have fuppofed, that they
were better advocates for the fufficiency of Reafon.
For thus does the former contradidl himfelf, in his
Poem on Natural Religion :

il je ne puis ignorer ce qu 'ordimna mon maitre ;

<c 11 m’a donne fa loi, puifqu’il m’a donne l’etre:

“ La

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

187

*< La morale uniforms, en tout temps, en tout ta,

« A des fiecles fans fin, nous park au nom de Dieu.

Afterwards, fpeaking of the Chinefe, Tartars, &c. he

fays,

« Bif events dans leurs mccurs, ainfi qu’en kurs Pommages ,

“ Ils lui font tous tenir un different langage.

“ Tous fe font done trompes”- - -

The poem concludes with a prayer, which begins,

« O Dieu, qu’on rneconnoit , 6 Dieu, que tout annonce!

Helvetius alfo, though forward to affure his fellow-
creatures that they require no guide, nor need any u-
pernatural inftruftion, fays of the prefect feene of
thino-s, “ Les Verites font par la mam du ciel lemees
<< ca et la, dans une for it obfeure , et fans route. Un
« chemin horde cette foret ; il eft frequente par une
“ infinite de voyageurs. Parmi eux il eft des curieux, a
« qui l’epaifleur et l’obfcurite meme du bois mipirent
le defir d’y penetrer : ils y entrent ; mais embarralles
<c dans les ronces, dechires par les epines, et rebutes aes
(C les premiers pas, ils abandonnent 1 entreprile, et re-
66 gagnent le chemin/’ De l Homme, vol. ii. 3C7*

Rouffeau’s confeffion and acknowledgment of his
own ignorance we have already noticed, INote 1. Diic. II .
But aTl thefe advocates for Natural Religion are, and
ever have been, notorioufiy inconfiftent in regard to
the fufficiency of human Reafon. See Dr. Lelands ad¬
mirable Reply to TindaVs Chriftianity as old as the Crea¬
tion; and his View of Deijtical Writers , Letteis ix.

*xvi.

Rage 159. note (3).

The Socinians, and modern Unitarians , as they Jlyle
them /'elves. ] Mr. Fuller, in his companion of the Cal-
viniftic and Socinian fyftems, very reafonably excufes
himfelf for applying generally the name Socinian to
the Anti-Trinitarians, in the following terms : I he

tc reafon why the term Socinian is preferred in the fol-
« lowing Letters to that of Unitarians, is not for the
44 mean purpofe of reproach, but becaufe the latter
<( name is not a fair one. The term, as conftantly ex-
“ plained by themfelves, fignifies thofe protelfors of
44 Chriftianity, who worfhip one God. But this^is^not

i88

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

4C that wherein they can be allowed to be diftinguifhed
tc from others ; for what profeftors of Chriftianity are
44 there, who profefs to worfhip a plurality of Gods ?
44 Trinitarians profefs to be Unitarians alfo : they, as
44 Veil as their opponents, believe there is but one God .
44 To give Socinians this name therefore exclujively ,
44 would be granting them the very point, which they
44 feem fo defirous to take for granted ; that is to fay,
44 the point in debate.’" Preface , p. ix.

Page 160. note (4).

We are not free to aft, nor free to choofe , nor free to de¬
liberate about our choice , &c.] 44 Voici comment on peut
44 reduire la queftion de la liberte de l’homme : la li-
44 berte ne l'e peut rapporter a aucune des fonetions
44 connues de notre ame. Car Tame, au moment ou
44 elle agit, ne peut agir autrement; au moment ou elle
44 choifit, ne peut deliberer autrement; au moment
44 qu’elle veut, ne peut vouloir autrement, parce qu’une
44 chofe ne peut exifter et ne point exifter en meme
44 terns. Or, c’eft ma volonte telle qu’elle eft qui me fait
44 deliberer ; c’eft ma deliberation telle qu’elle eft qui
44 me fait choifir; c’eft mon choix tel qu’il eft qui me
44 fait agir ; c’eft ma determination telle qu’elle eft qui
“ me fait executer ce que ma deliberation m’a fait
cc choifir; et je n’ai delibere que parce que j’ai eu des
cc motifs qui m’ont fait deliberer, et parce qu’il n’etoit
44 pas poftible que je ne voulufte pas deliberer. Ainfi la
46 liberte ne fe trouve ni dans la volonte, ni dans la de-
44 liberation, ni dans le choix, ni dans Taction ; quand
44 done peut-elle exercer fa liberte ? C’eft aux theolo-
44 giens a nous le dire.” Syfeme de la Nature , vol. i.
221. Note. But are not deliberation and choice at leaft
uf clefs in a fyftem of neceffity P
The continual inconfiftencies, into which thofe writers
fall who would fupport the doctrine of neceflity, may
be feen as well as any where in that atheiftical work.
The xivth and xvth chapters feem to be in complete
contradiction to the xiiith. In the latter the author
recommends fatalifm, becaufe 44 c’eft le Fatalifte qui doit
44 etre humble et modere par principe ; (we are not in¬
clined to difpute this confequence ; Dr. Hartley alfo
ftrongly inlilts upon it;) 44 11’eft-il pas force de recon-

(e noitre

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

189

44 noitre qu’il ne poflfede rien qu’il n’ait recju r Cer¬
tainly : but in ch. xiv. the author quarrels with the
fuperjlitious , (that is, the religiomfls , who teach the doc¬
trine of future rewards and punilhments,) and urges on
the other hand, that man be taught to lay a (id <2 all
iuch vain fears ; 44 qu’il apprenne a 5 ejhmer lui-meme;

qu’il ait V ambition de meriter l’eftime des autres.”
We are exhorted not to concern ourfelves about 44 no-
“ tre fort a venir,” but feek to be ufeful to our cotem¬
poraries and pofterity ; 44 qu’un amour legitime de nous -
*( memes nous iafie gouter d avaoce le chaime des lou-
44 anges que nos voulons meriter ; et, lorfque nous en
(oinmes digJies , apprenons & nous aimer , a nous ejlimer
“ nous-memes ” This is for thofe, who by the natural
confequence of the fyftem are “ forces de reconnoitre
‘ ‘ qu'ils ne polfedent rien qu’ils n’aient re^u that
is, either phyfically or morally , for fo the whole work
imports. Dr. Hartley’s expreffion is, that the fyftem of;
fatal ifm mull produce the “ molt profound ^ humility
« and felf- annihilation, fince according to it we are
44 entirely deftitute of all power and perfe&ion in our-
44 (elves. ” This very learned and pious author indeed
refers what we have to the grace and goodnefs of God;
but the author of the Syfleme de la ISiature , only to the
accidental motions and combinations of matter. But to
proceed. The chara&er of the virtuous man is thus
defcribed : 44 L’interet de l’homme vertueux eft de me-
“ riter par fa conduite V amour et V approbation des au-
44 tres, et de ne rien faire qui puiffe je degrader a Jes
44 proprcs yeux .” .And in his definition ot Virtue, lie
fays, 44 La vertu n’eft que Y art de J'e rendre heureux foi-
« mime de la felicite des autres Of the virtuous man
he alfo thus fpeaks, in another place: “Quand l’univers
44 entier feroit injufte pour l’homme dubien, il lui refte
44 l’a vantage de s’ aimer , de s' ejlimer lui-meme: nulle
44 force ne pent lui ravir Vejlime meritee par lui-meme .”

In his xviith chapter he reproves thofe who are weak
enough to think the foul capable 44 de refifter les irn-
44 pulfions de fes organes, &c.” But in his vindication
of penal laws, he fuppofes the cafe of perfons “ aflez mal
44 conftitues pour refifler . aux motifs qui agiflent fur
44 tous les autres.” Speaking of filicide , the author fays
this is lawful and natural , when pains and troubles be-

igo

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

fet us ; and his proof mud be admitted to be irrefrflible !
For the fame nature , lays he, that by a courfe of fatal¬
ity brings thefe didredes upon us, “ a travaille pendant
“ des milliers d’annees a former, dans le fein de la
“ terre, le fer qui doit trancher nos jours !!!” Could any
one fuppofe that the very fame writer who brings thele
heavy charges againd nature , Ihould yet in exprefs
terms have affirmed, “ L’on ne peut trop le repeter,
“ c’eft dans l’erreur que nous trouverons la vraie fource
ec des maux dont la race humaine eft; affligee ; ce n eft
c: point la nature qui la rendit malheureule.” Part. 1.
c. 16. Again. “ Une nature qui s'olfline a rendre notre
“ exigence malheureufe , nous ordonne d’en fortir ; en
“ mourant nous remplidons un de fes decrets.” Sam-
fon, Eleazar, le Meffie, and all the Chridian martyrs,
were, it feems, filicides ! And yet, according to the fame
author, thofe are not filicides who expofe themfelves to
the lots of life for the good of the community. In his
excufe for filicide he is for once confident: “Si I’homme
u n’ed libre dans aucun infiant de fa vie, il Fed encore
“ bien moins dans l’a6te qui la termine.” But what
then becomes of the very term filicide P

Such are a very few only of the numberlefs incon-
fidencies this author falls into; but there is not one
that is not common to all other writers upon the fub-
je6L I diall only take notice of one thing more at
prefent, becaufe it concerns thofe who think a fydem
of dri6t neceffity confident with moral refponfibility,
and a date of future rewards and punilhments. “ S’il eft
“ jujhf (it is God he is fpeaking of,) 66 comment croire
“ qu’il punifie des creatures qu’il a remplies de foi-
c: bleffes }” Let it be remarked, that this is the obfer-
vation of a rigid Fatalid. Our anfwer certainly is, that
the wicked do not fin through any weaknefs. But how
other Fatalijls will anfwer it, we know not.

Page i5i. note (5).

The affafjin can no more help the murder he commits ,
than the dagger can , which he employs .] So fays Mr.
Godwin in one place : but in another he argues, that
there would be no injuftice in thruding a drawn fword
again d the bofom of a friend, except that the necedary
connexion of caufes and effe6ls had taught us to forefee

that

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

191

that the fword would wound. Are we to luppofe then,
that the dagger of a murderer is as capable of forefee-
ing this conlequence, as the murderer himfelf ? It not,
the murderer may be guilty of an injufice in the aft,
which muft conftitute a nioft effentiai difference. But
we fhall be reminded, that Mr. Godwin’s principle on¬
ly is, that the murderer could no more help the murder
he commits, than the dagger he employs, &c. becaufe
the motives that govern him are irrefiftible. But why
has not the motive arifing from the certain and necel-
fary forefight of no wound being inflifted, except the
dagger is fo employed, as ftrong as any oppofite mo¬
tive ? Is there no room in the lcheme of the Fatalift
for a preference P Certainly there is, for Mr. Godwin
affures us fo. “ The doftrine of neceflity,” fays he,
“ does not overturn the nature of things. Happinefs
and mifery, wifdom and error, will fit ill be diftinft,
“ and there will ftill be a connexion between them.
u Wherever there is a diftinSlion , there is ground tor
“ preference and defire, or, on the contrary , for negleft
“and averfion. If therefore by virtue we mean that
<c principle, which afferts the preference of happinefs
« and wifdom to mifery and error, its reality will re-
“ main undiminifhed by the doftrine of neceffity.”
Pol. Juft. B. iv. ch. 8. Nay, preference in ope place is
made the very charafteriftic of virtue. “ Virtue, con-
« fidered as a perfonal quality, confifts in the difpofition
“ of mind, and may be defined a defire to promote the
“ benefit of intelligent beings in general ; the quantity
“ of virtue being as the quantity of defire. Now defire
« is another name for preference .” B. iv. ch. 5.

In another place Mr. Godwin defines virtuous con-
duft to be a “ conduft propofmg to itfelf a certain end.”
The definition is good : but what fhall we fay to the
argument that follows ; that no otherwife than a knife
has a capacity of cutting, has man a capacity of walk¬
ing? So that a knife that cuts well, is a knife that
propofes to itfelf to cut fharply !

Page 16 1. note (6).

It is in vain to plead any diflinElion between rational
and mechanical motives .] See upon this fubjeft Dr,
Prief ley’s Free DiJ'cuJfion of the Doctrines of Mater ialifm\

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

1(JZ

hi which, not only the Doctor’s own arguments in fup-
port of his fyftem are given at length, but the anfwers
and remarks of his friend Dr. Price. As Dr. Prieftley
was himfelf the editor of this work, we may naturally
conclude that he thought he had the bell of the argu¬
ment : but we think it can fcarce pollibly appear fo to any
perfon elfe in the whole world. Dr. Price’s anfwers
and objections are invariably ftrong and pertinent, and
many appear to us to be fo conclulive, as to admit of
no poffible reply. Dr. Prieftley would infill upon it,
that the advocate for free will, in profefling a freedom
of action, profeffes to a6t without motive ; and there¬
fore can feel no remorfe, nor even give offence. t( For,”
fays he, “ what can a man have to blame himfelf for,
<4 when he afted without motive, and from no fixed
“ principle, good or bad? And what occafion has he
y for pardon, who never meant to give offence ?” But
if a man refufes to be governed by a good motive, fuch
inaction alone might amount to offence ; much more if
he refills it, or a&s in direCt oppofition to it. What
motive ought to be greater than the will of God ? Yet,
how many negleCt, and how many even openly oppofe his
commandments? Butconfult his Free DiJcuj(Jion,'pp.Qfoj ,
308. Dr.. Price makes an admirable diftin&ion of mo¬
tives in his reply. According to him, motives are only
certain reafons, on the view of which, or c^tain rules
and perceptions, according to which, the tf%id deter¬
mines itfelf . According to Dr. Prieftley anr other Fa-
talifts, they are fubftances, which operate mechanically
on the mind, and leave it no dominion over its deter¬
mination. p. 342. See this point well argued in an
BJjfay on Liberty and Necejfity , by Philaretus, in anfwer
to Toplady, pp. 90, 91. See alfo Clarke’s excellent Re¬
ply to Leibnitz, as to his adopted comparifon of a ba¬
lance. Confult alfo the xxift chapter and the former
part of the xxiiid chapter of the Philocalia of Origen ;
where a good account is given of the confiftency of
the freedom of man with God’s over-ruling providence^
and many palfages of Scripture are reconciled.

Page 1 62. note (7).

IPe^ are taught to look upon this only as a deceptiond\
Notwithftanding the eminent piety of Dr. Hartley, I

cannot

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

*93

cannot get over the reflexion, which his fyftem Teems
to caft on the Deity, in the diftinHion he makes be-
tween the popular and philofophical language upon the
head of free-will ; a diftin&ion Dr. Prieftley is very ea¬
ger to infift upon. That the popular language may
1’erve to convey to us juft ideas of men’s actions, as far
as they fuppofe themfelves to be free agents, we can
readily admit ; but that the fame will ierve to vindi¬
cate God’s providence, we cannot allow. It would
furely Teem, that as by this fcheme he would {hew man
to be only nominally, and not philofophically free , by
the fame fcheme he represents the Deity as only nomi¬
nally, and by no means philofophically, jufl, in the al¬
lotment of rewards and punifhments.

Page 162. note (8.)

No circumflances of charaSler or difpofition , &c.] Cha¬
racter and difpofition feem to be ftubborn obftacles in
the way of fatalifm. Let them be regarded as they
will in many cafes, it would at leaft appear, that one
neceflity muft be oppofed to another. A motive inca¬
pable of producing its proper and riatural effect, muft be
hindered by fome impediment ; and in moral concerns
fuch impediment muft often operate in the way of re-
Jifiance. The following expreffions of Mr. Hume (fee
his Difertation on the Pajfions) feem furely to afcribe
fomething to character quite independent of any ne-
eeflary force of motives ; for what ffiould necejfarily go¬
vern us more than the view of the greateft poffible
good, or the fenfe of any prefent and prefling uneafi-
nefs ? His words are, u Men often a£f knowing ly againft
<c their intereft : it is not therefore the view of the
<c greateft poffible good, which always influences them.
“ Men often counteradl a violent pafion in profecution
“ of their diftant interefls and deflgns : it is not there-
“ fore the prefent uneafinefs alone, which determines
“ them. In general we may obferve, that both thefe
<£ principles operate on the will ; and where they are
i( contrary, that either of them prevails, according to
i( the general character and difpofition of the perfon.”
How far character or difpofition may check or fruftrate
the operation of motives, we read in another place.
4< If I have no vanity , I take no delight in praife. If I

o s< be

k;4

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

be void of ambition, power gives me no enjoyment.
i( If I be not angry, the punifhment of an adverlary is
6e totally indifferent to me,” &c. EJfays , vol. ii. 240.

Mr. Godwin, the pupil of Mr. Hume, or rather his
echo upon this fubjeCt, fays, the idea correfpondent to
the term character inevitably includes in it the ajjump -
Uon of necelfary connexion. This may be granted,
without however excluding contingency. Mr. Godwin
meets the objection, that “ in giving advice, or pro-
ee poling arguments to a friend or neighbour, we make
“ a referve for a certain faculty of liberty he is fuppofcd
“ to pojpj's, which may at laft counteract the bell di-
(i reCted projeCts,” by anfwering, that ci in regard, to
ef matter the fame thing happens. When an experi-
« ment fails, which had many times before fucceeded,
“ the philosopher does not apprehend any liberty of
“ choice in his retort and materials, but the counter -
operation of fome hidden caufe.” But what is this
to the purpofe ? We are not to be told, that matter is
no agent; that a retort has no free choice : the queftion
is, whether man is an agents and whether himjelf may not
be the counteracting caufe ? But why does Mr. God¬
win refer us to matter at all, if matter and fpirit be
identical ? If they are not identical , then Ipirit may be
aCtive, though matter cannot be fo; and thus Mr. God¬
win’s argument falls to the ground.

Mr. Hume conliders it as a proof that all men have
ever agreed in the doCtrine of neceffity, that a manu¬
facturer reckons as furely upon the labour of his fer-
vants, as upon the tools which he employs. Affuredly;
as far as he can be certain of the application of a given
quantity of labour : but is he ever afraid of a combina¬
tion among his tools, indicative of a choice and option
whether they will work or no ? Is he obliged to vary
the obligations, by which his tools, at different times,
are compelled to perform the talk aligned them ? Mr.
Godwin alfo indeed afferts, that “ a labourer no more
<tf fufpects that his employer will alter his mind, and
C( not pay him his daily wages, than he fufpe&s that
(i his tools will refufe to perform thofe funClions to-
“ day, in which they were yefterday employed with
fuccefs.” Whoever is wife enough to conclude it to
be a phylicai impoffibility, that the wages of a labourer

fhould

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

3 95

fhould ever be withheld, may be wife enough to re,-
gard it as a phyfieal poffibility, that a workman’s tools
may refufe to do the work affigned to them : and thofe
only who can believe both thefe things can admit, that
there is any propriety in the companion. Coniult
Beattie on Truth , Part II. ch. ii. iii. pp. 3 2J, 3^8. in re"
gard to fuch comparifons.

Whatever continues free in a cafe of compulsion,
muk 1’urely be considered as confederate in a cafe of
compliance. Rondeau has an applicable expreffion in
the following fentiment: ££ Je fuis cfclave par mes vices,
£i et hhre par mes remords .” Emile , liv. iv. and Malle-
branche aflerts, that <cwe are free to deny our confent .”
B. i. ch. 2. which cannot, I think, be doubted ; and
Purely Mr. Godwin intimates as much, when he ad-
vifes, ££ Comply when the neceflity of the cafe de-
££ mands it; but criticife while you comply;"’ Pol. JuJL
b. iii. c. 6. 2d edit. ; that is, withhold your confent,
which you may do ; and while you fubmit, exercife
your judgment, which no coercion can reach. Nay,
what Shall we think of Mr. Godwin’s opinion of the
freedom of confent, when he fays, in one place, 66 We
<£ are Sick, and we die, becaufe in a certain fenfe we
££ confent to fuffer thefe accidents.” Pol. JuJL 4to. edit,
vol. ii. 519. ££ Difcover the fecret intruded with you ;
i( I will not, for that is in my power. But I will
(£ throw thee into chains if thou doSl not. Man !
(C what dod thou lay ? Me wilt thou fetter ? My feet
<e thou may SI : but my purpoje not Jupiter himfelf can
{£ overcome.” Bifhop Butler obferves, that the mod
abandoned would wifh to obtain their ends by innocent
means, if they could. Does not this knew that they
mud give their confent to the violation of fame moral
principle within them, when they do wrong?

So far from our being fubjedl to an univerfal necedi-
ty, both moral and phyfieal, it would certainly appear,
that there are fome principles, which no neceflity
whatsoever can reach ; except indeed the will and
power of God, who could at once deprive us of exid-
ence : which is fit to be noticed, becaufe Fatalids have
often confounded free-agency with independence. To
be able to do Some things or. ourfelves can never im-.
ply, that we are able to do every thing. If God has

o 2 created

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

196

created any felf-motive, felf- determining agents, luch
creation can never make them ielf -exijlent. And yet
even Voltaire could think it a wife argument in proof
of neceftity, that no man could change his own na¬
ture: “ Si Von etoit libre,” fays he, “ quel eft 1’homme
£C qui ne changeat foil naturel ? mais a-t-on jamais vu
« fur la terre un homme fe donner feulement un gout?”
The Abbe Nonnette well enough replies, Would one lay
a hunch-back was not free, becaule he could not mend
his own fhape ? The Scripture fays, “ Thou canft not
i( make one hair white or black and even this has
been brought in proof of the do&rine of neceffity, be¬
ing the do&rine of Scripture : but the Scripture does
not fay we cannot rife from our bed, or ufe our hands
and feet, without being compelled by an abfolute ne¬
ceffity.

But it is not my defign to go farther into this ab-
ftrufefubje<ft, than to notice the ftrange and inconfiftent
opinions, that have been held and avowed. As Lord
Shaftelbury determined in regard to the fpeculations
concerning identity, we had better, I think, take our
free-agency “upontruft;” for though argument and
fpeculation and debate may go on to eternity, conduct,
in all probability, will be the fame. [See King’s Origin
of Evil , pp. 200. and 247. note 93] Men will always
a6t as though they were free ; for 1 cannot think any¬
thing can be more juftly applied to the fyftem of uni-
verfal neceffity, than what Mr. Godwin fays of the
do&rine of felf-love ; “ It is not eafy to conceive an
“ hypothefis more lingular than this. It is in direct
tf oppofition to experience, and what every man feems
“ to know of himlelf: it undertakes to maintain, that
“ we are under a delufion of the molt extraordinary
“ kind ; and which would appear, to a perfon not
c< trained in a philofophical fyftem, of all others the
“ moft improbable.” Pol . JuJI . b. iv. c. 10.

Page 1 65. note (9.)

None of the modern advocates of this dodtrine allow us to
draw fuch a conclujion .J Mr. Hume thinks the do&rine
of neceffity abfolutely effential to the fupport of religion
and morality. Dr. Prieftley thinks it a far better foun¬
dation for Ethics than that of philofophical liberty.

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

197

We cannot doubt but the very pious Dr. Hartley bad
perfuaded himfelf fo. Godwin thinks, that to aft in¬
dependently of motives, that is, in his lenie ot the
term, to a£t freely , is to have our conduct as indepen¬
dent of morality as of reafon. Mr. Belfham s whole
object, in his Philofophy of the Mind , is to reconcile the
doHrines ot materialifm , neceffity , and the felfifh fyftem
of morals, with religion and virtue. Mr. B. infills
upon it, that whatever is true fhould be difclofed. I he
Edinburgh Reviewers have ably expofed this maxim,
and have fhewn, that even if thefe doctrines could be
fuppofed to be true, they might be of important detri¬
ment to fociety. Even the atheiftical author of the
Syfteme de la Nature allows no indemnity to the per-
verfe, under a fyftem of neceflity, if indeed his argu¬
ment does not overthrow the whole of the doctrine
itfelf : “ Les loix ne font faites que pour empecher les
t( hommes affocies de fe nuire : elles peuvent done pu-
Ci nir ceux qui troublent la fociete. Soit que ces aifo-
<e cies loient des agents nece.ffiles , foit qu’ils agiffent li-
« brement; il leur fuffit de f^avoir que ces agents peu-
ec vent etre modifies.” Ch. xii. Part. I.

But the bed; account to be given of the date of the
queftion, as applicable either to our prefent conduct or
future profpeHs, is to be found in the celebrated work
of the learned Bifhop Butler. Having (hewn by many
clear and indifputable arguments, that God at prefent
governs the world by the method of rewards and pu-
nifhments, in the natural confequences of virtue and
vice, he draws thefe two conclufions : “ If it be incre-
“ dible, that neceffary agents fhould be lo rewarded and
“ punifhed in the natural confequences of their actions,
u then men are not neceffary, but free ; fince it is mat-
« ter of fa&j that they are thus rewarded and puniflied.

But if, on the contrary, (which is the fuppofition we
(( have been arguing upon,) it be infilled, that men are
“ neceffary agents, then there is nothing incredible in
“ the farther fuppofition of neceffary agents being thus
« rewarded and punifhed ; fince we ourfelves are thus
“ dealt with/J

All fpeculations upon the fubje£l therefore are really
unneceifary ; fince, if vve are free, and know ourfelves
to be fo, we muft believe that we are refponfible both

03 to

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

19S

to God and to man for the whole of our conduct and
our actions, and that rewards and punidiments await us
accordingly both here and hereafter. Rut if we can
for an inftant fuppofe ourfelves neceflary beings, then
we are allured by Fatalids themfelves, that it does not
fet us free from the obligations of morality with re-
fpeCt to this life ; and by the very learned Bilhop But¬
ler, that it neither dedroys the proof of a moral go¬
vernor, nor contradicts our being in a date of religion,
with refpebt to God, or with refpect to a life to come.
See his Analogy* Part I. ch. vi.

Page 168. note (10).

Syfleme de la Nature , Part I. ch. xii. I have endea¬
voured to keep to the exact terms the Author himfelf
ules. I have rendered iC peines” by our Englifh ex¬
predion of pains and penalties , becaufe they are both in¬
cluded in the French term; and the author unquef-
tionably had a view to legal punijhments , as well as co¬
ercion ; and the whole is avowedly in vindication of
penal laws. “ Se trouve-t-il des hommes aflez mal
4 conditues pour rejijler ou pour etre infenjtbles aux
motifs qui agiJJ'ent Jitr tons les autres , ils ne font point
propres a vivre en lbciete, ils contrarieroient le but
“ de l’adbciation, ils en feroient les ennemis, ils met-
(i troient obdacle a fa tendance, et leurs volontes rebell es
u et infociables, ri ay ant pu etre mod' fees con ven able -
44 ment aux interets de leurs concitoyens, ceux-ci fe
c: reunident centre^ leurs ennemis ; et la loi, qui eft
4 Pexpreftion de la volonte generale, inflige des peines a
ces etres, fur qui les motifs qu’on leur avoit prefen tes
n *ont point les ejfets que Yon pouvoit en attendee The
author makes no objection whatever to the penal laws
of a date; indeed he extends them far beyond what ever
entered yet into the mind of the mod fanguinary le-
gidator ; for, upon his fyftem, madmen, and ideots, and
children are as proper fubjebts of the pains and penal¬
ties of the law, as the wicked and perverfe : for his de¬
finition of a punifhable crime is in fa£t, 44 toute action
44 nuifible, de quelque fource qu’elle foit partie and
certainly, at all events, none are fo inaccedible to or¬
dinary motives, as fools, and madmen, and children. And
yet the fame writer can argue againft the Theijlical Fa -
i talijl

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

1 99

tali ft in the following ftrong terms. “ Eft- il rien de plus
(( inconfequent que les idees de quelques Pheiftes^qui
“ nient la liberte de l’homme, et qui cependant s’ob-
i( ftinent a parler d’un Dieu vengeur et remuneratem ?
tc comment un Dieu jufte peut-il punir des actions ne-
“ ceffaires ?” Ch. vii. Part II.

Page 170. note (11).

Dr. Prieftley is not the il r ft Unitarian who has dil-
puted the immateriality of the human foul ; (fee Ed¬
wards's Preservative againji Socinianifm , Part 1\ . p. 30.)
but perhaps he is the fir ft who has fo openly avowed
his motives for fo doing. He acknowledges that it
proceeded from an apprehenfion, that the doctrine or
(( a feparate foul had been the foundation of what ap-
“ peared to him the very grofleft corruptions of Chrif-
“ tianity, and of that Antichriftianifm which began to
<( work in the Apoftles’ times, and extended itielf lo
“ dreadfully afterwards “ I mean,” fays he, “ the
“Oriental philofophy of the pre-exiftence of . fouls,
« which drew after it the pre-exiftence and divinity of
<c Chrift, &c. Among thefe alio I rank the doctrine of
Li atonement for the fins of men by the fuflferings and
« death of Chrift.” See the IntroduBion to his Free Df-
cuffion of the DoBrines of Materialifm , in a correfpondence
between Drs. Prieftley and Price. At pp. 240, 241, he
fays further, u In (Port, it is my firm perfuafion, that
“ the three doctrines of materialifm , of that which is
i( commonly called Socinianifm , and of philofophical m-
« cejfity, are equally parts of one fyftem, being equally
<£ founded on juft observations of nature, and fan dc-
“ du<tions from the Scriptures.” 1 have already had
occafion to notice this publication ; fee note 6. Dr.
Price’s arguments are unanfwerable in many in fiances 5
but it is particularly curious, that in his objections he
has aim oft forced Dr. Prieftley into a voluntary illuftra-
tion of the Trinity ; that is, in fa£t, into an acknow¬
ledgment of the reafonahlenefs of the doctrine, contrary
to his own principles : for in anlwer to Dr. Price s ob¬
jection, “ would not any number of living bodies be one
“ foul, one fentient principle, fuppofing their organiza-
“ tion the fame ?” Dr. P. replies, “ I anlwer, that dif-
« ferent fyftem s of matter, organized exactly alike,
/ / 04 “ muft

200

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

i( muft make different beings, who would feel and
“ think exactly alike in the fame circum fiances. Their
“ minds therefore would be exa&ly Jimilar, but numeri-
L( cally different ” Surely this is at leaft coming very
near to an unity of volition and operation with a diftinc-
tion of perfons. See Free Difcuffion , p. 78.

Page 17 1. note (12).

Muff incline us to Jet hut fmall value on fuch vain [pecu¬
lations .] What are we to think of the advances men have
made in metaphyjics , when we confider the prefent Hate
of the queftion concerning matter itfelf : a quefiion of
no fmall importance, when it is made to include the
nature of the human foul. Dr. Prieflley attributed
motion to matter. His friend Dr. Price pofitively de¬
nied it. Diderot, in his Syffeme de la Nature , fays, {C le
“ mouvement ne pent etre qu’une propriete de la mati-
“ ere.’" Roufleau fays, “ Mon efprit refufe tout acqui-
“ efcement a l’idee de la matiere non-organifee fe mou-
<( vant d'elle-meme, ou produifant quelque a&ion.0
Emile. Dr. Darwin, though he afterwards feems to de-
fert his own principles, fays, in the outlet of his Zoono-
mia, u The whole of nature may be faid to confift of
“ two effences or fubftances ; fpirit and matter. The
“ former has power to commence or produce, the latter
u to receive or communicate motion.0 According to
one difcovery in France, the mind is thought to confift
of a fine fpecies of crjffals ! See a paper by La Metherie
in the Journal de Phyjique. At all events, Metaphyficians
are by no means yet agreed as to the poflibility or im~
pofifibility of matter's thinking. See Florae's Effays ,
3d edit. p. 286. *

SERMON

SERMON V.

Jeremiah vi. 1 6.

Thus faith the Lord , Stand ye in the ways, and fee , and
afk for the old paths, where is the good way , and walk
therein, and ye Jhall find rejl for your fouls . But they
faid, IVe will not walk therein .

Whenever we perceive a difpolition in

the world to place a more than ufual confi¬
dence in the powers of Reafon, we may well
exped not to be indulged in any attachment
or adherence to old opinions. Reafon, in fuch
a cafe, becomes a faculty altogether modern .
It is only the wit and wifdom of the prefent
day, that is ever dignified with the title;
nor is the title even then bellowed on the
fober talent of enquiry and inveftigation, fo
much as on the adventurous propenfity to
invention and difcovery, reformation and
change. The former procefs is too flow, and
has too much of fubmifiion and accommo¬
dation

202

SERMON V.

dation in it : the latter is fure to be popular
for the time; for oppofition, merely as fuch,
is grateful to many minds, and novelty al¬
ways has its charms.

It is upon this principle that fo much ill
will has been expreffed of late to every thing
taught and inculcated upon a footing of per¬
manence, as I had occafion to notice in my
fecond Difcourfe ; and that we have been fo
rudely called upon to abandon our laws and
pur lfatutes, our creeds and our catechifms,
to make way for the fuperior fyftem of per¬
fectibility ( 1 ) ; which, in the jargon of the
times, we have been told, is “ the only falu-
“ brious element of mind3:” that is, as I
conceive, (if it is poffible to give any mean¬
ing to fo ftrange an expreffion,) we mull
futfer ourfelves to be perfuaded, that fince
knowledge in general feems to be progref-
five, and always capable of further advance¬
ment, it is not wife to fuppofe, that we have
hitherto attained to any degree of perfeftion
or certainty, even on points the moft im¬
portant. And thus religion and morality
mull be left to take their chance among

* Godwin, Pol. Juft. vol. ii. 397. 4to. edit.

other

SERMON V.

203

other things, which the fuperior wifdom of
the times is to new-model and improve.

But this cannot be the cafe, if either of
them is founded on Revelation, or can be
fuppofed to be fo ; and therefore it is of the
utmoft importance to us to be affured, that
they have fuch a foundation ; that there cer¬
tainly exifts fuch a Revelation ; that it has
fome fuch marks of authenticity, as the In¬
fidel cannot controvert ; and that, if we have
not fuch a Revelation in the holy Scriptures,
(a Revelation of God’s will and defign in
Xhcfirjl creation of man,) fo far from having
any reafon to expert greater improvements
in the way of morality and religion, we have
the utmoli afliirance which the nature of
things can fupply, that nothing more certain
or fatisfa&ory is to be expe&ed, either from
God or man.

That it is exceedingly worth our while,
independent of all other confiderations,
to examine into the truth of the Jewilh
and Chriftian Revelations, I have already
endeavoured to Ihew, by an examination of
fome of thofe points, which Reafon cannot
decide for us, but which thofe Two Revela¬
tions

SERMON V.

a 04

tions certainly do \ Reafon can never in¬
form us whence we came, or what is to be¬
come of us (*); who placed us here, nor for
what end, nor what was the origin of the
globe we dwell on. Of thefe things the
Scriptures inform us. Reafon can never tell
us when the world began, though its eter¬
nity is incomprehenfible, and inconfiftent
with our moft common notions of God’s at¬
tributes. This the Scriptures decide for us.
Our reafon and our confcience will both in¬
form us, that we are wicked and corrupt ;
but that God cannot be considered as the
immediate author of fuch wickednefs and
corruption. Thefe difficulties the Scriptures
will reconcile for us. Reafon can never tell
us, how thefe things are to end ; how we
are to be fet free from the evils that now
belet us ; how the moral government of God
is finally to be vindicated. All thefe things
alfo the Scriptures amply difclofe to us.

Such information as the above, then, being
to be derived folely from the Scriptures, as
the lacred and infpired records of God’s

0 \ id. Abbadie de la Vcrite de Ja Religion Cbretienne3 fe£fc. iii.
ch. 3.

dealings

SERMON V.

205

dealings with mankind from the firft be¬
ginning of things, and of his purpofe and
defign in the creation both of the earth and
of man ; it would be the utinoft folly to dif¬
fer ourfelves to be deprived of luch impor¬
tant information, by any objections that fall
lliort of pojitive contradiction.

I cannot help regarding it as a point en¬
tirely fettled, that nothing amounting to po -
Jitive contradiction can poffibly be alleged
againft the peculiar credentials of the Jewifk
and Chriftian Revelations, fuch as prophecy
and miracles (3). Men may difpute the ap¬
plication of particular prophecies, or the tef-
timony concerning particular miracles ; but
that prophecy or miracles are in themfelves
impoflible, or have not been brought into
the fyftem of God’s providential government
of the world, as the Jewith and Chriftian
records atteft, is wholly incapable of proof.
Thofe who have endeavoured to invalidate
their authority, by pretending that the for¬
mer cannot be kept free from the reach of
chance ; or that no evidence can be fufficient
to certify us of the truth of the latter, have
not in any manner proved their points. If
one prophecy fhould not have every requifite

inftfted

20 6

SERMON V.

infilled on by a late celebrated writer, as fuf-
ficient to prove it to be above the reach of
human conjecture, or the contingencies of
common events ; yet the accumulation and
agreement of many fucceffive prophecies
certainly may : a cale by no means properly
conlidered by the writer alluded to c. And
as to the polhbility of a fufficient evidence
of miracles, the very writer who has put
himfelf moll forward to deny it, has by an
extraordinary overlight exprefsly admitted
it, in contradiction to his own arguments ;
as has been Ihewn in the cleareli and fulleii
manner d. But pojitive contradictions having
been fought for, where indeed it was moll
reafonable to look for them, in the hillorical
records of the world, and in the body of the
earth itfelf, I lhall proceed, according to the
plan I let out with, to take a view of the
prelent Hate of hi/lory and phyjics , as far as
they may be thought to affecl the authenti¬
city of the Scriptures. And firll, in regard
to the hillorical records of the world.

They who pretend to have the moll ex-

c Roufleau.

* See Leland s Anjkuer to Hume , and Campbell on Miracles.

. : alted

SERMON V.

207

ailed ideas of God’s majefty, are too apt to
regard every tiling lefs than infinite as un¬
worthy of his notice, and as inferring fome
limitation of his will or his power. That an
eternal Being thould he repielentcd as doing
any thing in time, is thought a derogation
from his majefty ; and therefore the Mofaic
cofmogony is objected to, not only in refpect
to the periodical operations into which it is
divided, but for the fmall antiquity it feems
to affign to our globe or fyftcin. As to the
particular date, be it what it will, it has been
well ohferved, in reply to thofe who are
willing to grant the world not to be eternal,
that if it ever had a beginning, it mull at
one time or other have been juft as old as
we account it to be now ; and fuch objec¬
tions would have been juft as valid tnen, as
far as concerns the will and delign of God.
But in regard to the fad itfelf, of the new
creation or arrangement of any world or
fvllem, modern difcoveries would rather

J 7

i'eem to juftify fuch an hypothelis. For
though we can never fpeak with too much
diffidence upon fuch fubjeds, yet I Cannot
forbear to remark, that the lofs of fome liars
noticed in ancient catalogues, as well as- tlie

ap-

2o8

SERMON V.

appearance of new ones, have led fome very
eminent and pious aftronomers to the con¬
jecture, that, in the courfe of God’s pro¬
vidential government of the univerfe, fome
fyfiems are from time to time diffolved, and
others called into being; and that things may
continue fo till the period fixed for the final
confummation of all things (4).

Such has been lately the conjecture of
wife and good men ; but we muft not re¬
gard it as more than a conjecture ; and I
have no other view in mentioning it, than
to fhew, that it is not unreafonable to fup-
pofe, independently of the light of Revela¬
tion, that the very period of the commence¬
ment of our fyftem, particularly of the globe
we dwell on, may be ajfigned , and has been
recorded : that it may be regarded as of a
determinate age, and its date afeertained, by
enquiry into the hiflory of man, and the
origin, courfe, and progrefs of arts and fei-
ences. For as there can be no doubt, that
the chief purpofe of the creation of this
globe muft have been to make it the feat
of rational, focial, and intelligent beings,
the newnefs of fuch arts and fciences, as are
not eflential to man as fuch, mult be a fen-

fible

SERMON V. 2 09

fible proof of the low antiquity of this ha¬
bitable world. But this argument has been
fo often reforted to, that I need not dwell
on it longer, than to remark generally, that
we are certainly able to trace many of the
molt important difcoveries, and molt necef-
fary arts, to a certain point : to fuch a Rate
of rudenefs and imperfection, that is, as may
at once ferve to fhew, that their improve¬
ment has been gradual, and that their firft
invention cannot have been very diflant and
remote (5).

But we ought always to remember, that,
wdien once we give up the Mofaic rera of
the creation of man, as fabulous, we have
comparatively an eternity before us(6). The
world may be ten years, or ten thoufand, or
ten thoufand times ten thoufand years older.
A fmall difference will not fuit the purpofes
of thofe, who would infift upon the low an¬
tiquity of the globe being incompatible with
the prefent appearances of things ; and to
affign any very high antiquity at pleafure
will ferve them no better. A few centuries
will make no difference in regard to the for¬
mer objection, and many will only involve
them again in doubts as to the late inven-

. p tion

210

SERMON V.

tion of arts and fciences, and the lofs of all
monumental records.

But the moil remarkable circumttance of
all, and that on which I chiefly propofe to
infill at prefent, is the want of all evidence
pojitively contradictory to the sera alhgned
by the Scriptures. There can be no doubt
as to the great antiquity of the book of Ge-
nejis. There is no reafonable doubt to be
entertained of its being written and com-
pofed by Mofes c : we have no difficulty in
determining the part of the world in which
it was written ; and we may, by reference
to other exifting annals of the world, and
other hiftories of mankind, be morally cer¬
tain of many of the circumftances, under
which it mull have been written, fuppofing
it to be a merely human compolition. What
knowledge Mofes might have, had of the
world in general, it is neither poffible nor
neceflary to conjecture ; but what he could
not have known of the world, is aim oft ca¬
pable of demonliration'. It would be next

e See Gray on the. Old Tejl ament.

r How ignorant the early Pagan hiftorians were of the fi-
tuation, affairs, and concerns of other countries, befides their
own. may be feen in Jenkins Reafonablenejs of Chrijlianity , vol.i.

P- 95-

SERMON V.

21 I

to an abfurdity to fuppofe that he could
have had any knowledge of the great conti¬
nent of America ; of the weftern parts of
Europe ; of much of Aha, and much of A-
frica. Of Egypt, Phoenicia, and Chaldaea,
we may grant that he knew as much as
could be known ; but it is remarkable, that
thefe very countries (till very lately, that
their annals came to be better underftood)
were fuppofed to have laid claim to an anti¬
quity totally irreconcileable with the Mofaic
rera of the creation. Had the author of the
book of Genefis then had no determinate
period in view, it is reafonable to fuppofe,
that, for the credit of his hiftory, he would
either have pofitively contradicted thefe ac¬
counts, or minutely conformed himfelf to
them. But inftead of this, while he even
alcribes to the Egyptians, Babylonians, Af-
lyrians,Midianites, and Canaanites, who were
enemies and objedts of averfion to his coun¬
trymen, a higher antiquity than to the If-
raelites 8 ; yet, regardlefs of all the extrava¬
gances the world has iince been amufed

p. 95. See alfo Wottoris and Baker s Reflexions on Learning , for
the knowledge the ancients had of geography.

g See Jamiefon on the life of Sacred Hiftory > ift Difquifition'
prefixed.

p 2 with.

212

SERMON V.

with, lie proceeds in a narration, the moil
artlefs and the moft regular, to deduce the
whole race of mankind from one common an-
ceftor ; to whofe creation he afligns a parti¬
cular aera, as well as to the earth itfelf, their
intended habitation and dominion. Certainly,
to have written at a particular period ; to have
written and publifhed luen an account be¬
fore one half, or even one fourth part of the
world was known, or had been t raver fed ;
and to have done this in the very mi dll of
nations laying claim to an antiquity, far ex¬
ceeding: the eera fixed on, muft have been as
bold an impofture as could well have been
attempted (7).

But it is now, as nearly as can be, upon
the lowed: computation, three thoufand years
fince this account was written ; in which
time the globe has been gradually explored, .
and every enquiry made, that could be made,
into the hiftory and antiquities of the fe-
veral nations into which it is divided. That
much is loft that might aid fuch enquiries,
it would be vain to deny ; but that much re¬
mains to be difcovered, it is not reafonable to
fuppofe. Of what is loft, fragments of great

importance have been prefeiwed ; and to

many.

SERMON V. aij

many, fuch references are fubfifting, as may
ferve to inform us of the general nature
of their evidence. Of what remains to he
dilcovered perhaps we have little or nothing
to expedt but from the Eaft. The literary
It ores of Afia, to fay the molt of them, are
now perhaps only exploring — but already we
know much — much that is without doubt
exceedingly corroborative of the Scripture
hiltory of the earth and of man. I do not
mean to take up your time with any ex¬
amination of the correfpondences particu¬
larly to be difcovered, between the Oriental
mythologies and the Mofaic account of the
early ages of the world ; nor is it my inten¬
tion to trace fuch refemblances through the

verv curious, but too often obfcure, mazes of

•/

etymology. If all that can reasonably be
done in this way has not yet been done ("),
yet certainly fuch inveftigations ha\e been
purfued far enough to enable us to draw ♦
this general conclufion ; that even if the
Hindu Scriptures could be proved to be older
than the Mofaic writings, yet as Mofes might
certainly have written, all that he has written
of the hilfory of the firft generations of men,
from tradition, the many correfpondences and

p 3 refemblances

214

SERMON V.

refemblances that have been traced in the
Hebrew and Hindu Scriptures, as well as
in many profane hiftories, can only tend to
lhew that they were all equally derived from
one common fource h. Mofes does not tell
us himfelf, that his is the oldeft record of
thefe traditions : but as far as it is in agree¬
ment with other hiftories, it requires only
common fenfe to diftinguifh it as the m oft
authentic ; and his infpiration as a Prophet is
totally a diftindt confideration.

There are many things connedted with
the hiftory of man, of which we mu ft now
be contented for ever to remain ignorant;
and yet they have been confidered as of no
frnall importance in fuch inveftigations as
thofe I am treating of ; fuch, for inftance, as
the origin of languages. It has been thought
that, had the world begun, as we fuppofe it
to have begun, with a firft pair, all lan¬
guages now exifting might be traced to one
parent ftock ; and were this clearly practica¬
ble, it might certainly be expedted to throw

h See this difcuffed in the 16th vol. of the Britifh Critic,
pp. 148, 149, 1^0, in anfwer to the flrange advertifement pre¬
fixed to the 3th vol. of the Af.Qtic Refear ches, which is furely an
interpolation.

much

SERMON V.

215

; S

much light on the origin of nations. But
though fome have thought this poftible (9),
and it muft unqueftionably be granted that
very ftriking refemblances have been traced
between the different tongues, idioms, and
dialers of nations the moil remote; yet, as a
queftion which concerns the Scriptures, we
muft remember, that if the Scriptures are
true, we read of a confullon of tongues 1 tor
wife purpofes ; to further the difperfion of
families, and for the difcomfiture of an impi¬
ous project : a confufion which would infer,
if not a feparation into a multiplicity ot
diftind tongues, yet at leaft a feparation
of one language into a great variety of dia-
leds k; a variety which time, and the fur¬
ther feparation of tribes and nations, the
later invention and adoption of different al¬
phabets to exprefs the feveral forms of
fpeech1, and many other circumftances, muft
have continually increafed; lo as to have
long rendered fuch an enquiry too preca¬
rious to be depended on. It would be

1 See Hartley on Man , prop, cxxiii. p. 373. edit. 1791, and

Stackhoufe s Ilijfory of the Bible.

See Bryant s Mythology .

1 See Joe fon 3 Chronological Antiquities.

r 4

much

21 6

SERMON V.

much more to our purpofe to endeavour
to inform ourfelves how the connection
between the different races of people can
be traced ; and though this alfo muft, in the
nature of things, be now liable to many un¬
certainties, yet there feems to be great rea-
fon for our reliance on the general refult of
thole curious and laborious enquiries, for
which we are indebted to that very learned
and indefatigable Orientaliii, whofe prema¬
ture lofs, not this place only, nor yet only
the nation, but the world at large has had
fuch great occafion to deplore; namely, that
the world appears , upon the moft diligent
enquiry that can be made into the fubjeCt,
to have been peopled by three great branches
proceeding from one Rock. We know that
this very curious inveffigation has been
purfued through the four media, of their
languages and letters ; their philofophy ; the
actual remains of their fculpture and archi¬
tecture ; and laffly, the written memorials of
their arts and fciences m.

It cannot be expeCted that I fhould do

* % *6

S~e Lord Teignmouth s Life of Sir IViUiam fones , and the
leveral Anmverfary Difcourfes and other papers of Sir William,
publiilied in the Afiatic Relearches, and in his Works.

SERMON V, 217

more at prefent than refer to the very cu¬
rious difcourfes and difquifttions, whence we
derive this information : but I cannot help
adding this remark, that if wre have not now
every document we might have had upon
the fubject, we have fuch a gradation of
documents, as may well deter us from all
poffible expectation of receiving any further
information, truly hiftorical, of the more re¬
mote ages of the world. The Scripture ac¬
count is at once the fhorteft and molt regu¬
lar, indeed the only regular one. What is
at all intelligible in other accounts is ealily
reducible to this ; what is not intelligible
has been proved to be in many relpeCts fo
clearly artificial, as to take it entirely out of
the line of hiftory.

But, in order to judge properly of the
prefent date of our knowledge in regard
to the hiftory of man, it will be fit to take a
Ihort but comprelienftve view of the Hindu
chronology, as the laft that has come before
us for examination, and in which there have
occurred as great appearances of antiquity
as in any, perhaps, that has ever been dis¬
covered lince the firft publication of the Ge¬
ne fis of Motes. Any exaCt conformity with

the

218 SERMON V,

the Hebrew records, any perfect iynchron-
bins, it would be vain and abfurd to expect ;
and whatever traces may be found of refem-
blance in the hiftorical records of the He¬
brews and Hindus, it is moft certain that
one ot the two has deviated fo much from
the plain truth, and run fo far into the la¬
byrinth of poetical imagery, fable, and alle¬
gory, as to afford us but little information
truly hiitorical, upon which we may rely.

The celebrated Agronomical Tables of the
Hindus, however, have been fuppofed to fup-
ply us with data of much more certainty (I0) ;
and it cannot be denied that they mull for
ever excite our admiration and furprife. To
Eiy the lead: of them, they evince fuch a know¬
ledge of the celeftial phenomena, that their
accuracy and precifion in many refpedts are
exceedingly extraordinary. It has been fup¬
pofed capable of proof by very eminent men,
that the calculations mujl have been derived
from actual obfervation ; and if lb, they carry
us fo far back as naturally to occalion no fmall
lurprife, not only in regard to the advanced
Hate of that curious fcience in ages fo remote,
but as we conlider the comparative want of
infiruments for the purpofe of obfervation. It

has

SERMON V.

2l9

has been afferted indeed fince, that wrong
dates have undoubtedly been afligned to thefe
Tables ; and, befides other ftrong objections,
very curious calculations have been made,
to fhew that they need not, at all events, be
indifpenfably referred to adtual obfervation ;
fince it was poffible to alfuine fuch epochs as
the Tables aflign, without the ritk of much
perceptible variation". Both thefe circum-
ftances are undoubtedly of the very firll im¬
portance, if we chofe to infill upon them :
but I fhall rather confine myfelf to the ge¬
neral refult of the cafe, fuppofmg every thing
to be granted that is required of us, in regard
to the great antiquity of thefe Tables.

It is well known that the Hindu chrono¬
logy is principally divided into four ages, all of
an extravagant length ; the largell period ex¬
tending to the immenfe amount of nearly two
millions of years. I have already obferved,
that if we once quit the Mol'aic asra, we have
comparatively an eternity before us. Tor if
that account is not true, we fliall not, I think,
be inclined to trull to any Pagan mythology,

11 See Mr. Bentley on the Snrya S'uldb&nta in the 6th vol. of
the Afitiiic Refeanbes.

but

220

SERMON V.

but ihall be contented to acknowledge, that
we are without any certain account whatever
of the beginning of things. Now in the Hindu
chronology we already have a computation
of only one period of nearly two millions of
years ; and we have nothing, in the mere na¬
ture of things , to fet again!! the poffibility of
fuch a duration of our lyliem and of man¬
kind, even without any reduction of thofe
years to lunar or diurnal revolutions. The
i'econd or third ages are of more than one
million of years ; and the fourth or prefent
age is, by their accounts, to lalt upwards of
four hundred thoufand years.

Now it is certainly very remarkable, that,
though time is much wantedto account in any
manner for fuch a progrefs in the fcience of
altronomy, as fhould enable us to refer the
Hindu 1 ables to the crra they point to ; yet
thofe who have examined them with the great-
el! attention, and have exprelfed the greateft
confidence in their antiquity, have not been
able to difcover any other proper monu¬
mental or hifiorical records, to confirm fuch
a liate of things ; nor (luppofing them achi-
ally the fruit of obfervation) do they yet
ferve to carry us back further, than to fuch

a period

SERMON V.

221

a period as might well be brought into agree¬
ment with the Scripture chronology. I do
not fay into exad agreement, nor is the
agreement to be traced directly ; but yet into
a degree of conformity not at all to be ex¬
pected, if the world is either fo old as the
Hindu records pretend, or even at all older
than the Mofaic Eera of the creation, accord¬
ing to the largelt Scriptural computation ex¬
tant; I mean the computation of the Sep-
tuagint. According to this computation, the
commencement of the fourth Hindu age, in
which we are fuppofed to be at prelent,
does not carry us beyond the a?ra of the -
deluge0: and as every Indian age is fuppofed
to be terminated by a deluge, all this part
of their chronology and hiftory is ftrictly
pojldiluvian. The two firft ages are, by thofe
molt attentive to the fubjed, entirely fet
afide, as fabulous ; therefore we have only
the two lalt ages for the hiftory of man,
amounting, according to the Hindu compu-

0 The aera of the flood, according to common copies of the
LXX. is 3028 before Chrift ; according to Grabe’s Septuagint,
324 6-, according to Perron, 361 7. M.Bailly fixes the commence¬
ment of the 4th Hindu age at 3102,

tation.

222

SERMON V.

tation, to eight hundred and fixty-four thou-
fand years, added to what is expired of the
current age. But as the former has been
held by one very eminent writer P to have
confided only of lunar years, or years of
months, upon reduction they are brought
down to two thoufand four hundred folar
years; which added to three thoufand one
hundred and two, the years fuppofed to
have elapfed from the commencement of
the fourth age to the Chriftian sera, make
in all five thoufand five hundred and two
years, leaving a difference of only fix years
between this account and one computation
of the Seventy

It is not poflible in a difcourfe from the
pulpit to go further into fucli calculations :
but fuch a conformity in accounts apparently
fo contradictory is too firiking and remarka¬
ble to be entirely paffed over ; more efpeci-
ally as it would feem to be the winding up

p M. Bailly. See note 9.

q The computation of the Conftantinopolitans and Grabe 9
Septuagint, of the years from the creation to the birth of Chrift,
amounts to 55°^ years, 3 months. There are two accounts ex-
tant, which come ill nearer ; that of Cedrenus in Chevreau,
which is $$o6; and that of Julius Africanus, Theophanes, Euty-
chius, &c. which is 5300.

SERMON V.

223

of all chronological accounts of the world.
It is no long time lince the Chaldaean,
Phoenician, ^Egyptian, and even Grecian an¬
tiquities, were thought to be quite irrecon -
cileable to the holy Scriptures ; and I ought
to add to thefe, the Chinefe annals, which,
though fo much more recently made known
to the wTorld, have by fome been fuppofed
to be the mod ancient and molt accurate ac¬
counts of all. The very learned author of
the Origines Sacne conjectured, from the
particular aera of the publication of the
Egyptian and Chaldaean dynalties, that they
were exprefsly defigned to invalidate the au¬
thority of the Septuagint tranllation of the
Old Teliamentr: but it has lince been dis¬
covered that both accounts are capable of
being brought to agree, if not with the He¬
brew, which has been llrongly infilled upon,
yet very nearly with the Greek chronology
of Scripture, by a judicious feparation of all
that is clearly fabulous and artificial, and fuch
a reduction of diurnal and lunar to folar
years, as is not only reafonable, but exprefsly
authorifed by the teftimony of very anci-

r See *ilfo Wottons Reflections on Learning , ch. ix, 2d edit.

ent

SERMON V.

224

ent authors ; of the propriety and juflice
of which we cannot poffibly doubt, from
many inftances that might be adduced of
different accounts being thus brought to a
perfect agreement. This is fuppofed to be the
cafe, very particularly, with the feparate ac¬
counts given by Callifthenes and Epigenes
of the Chaldean obfervations, which accord¬
ing to the latter amounted to the amazing
film of feven hundred and twenty thou-
fand years s; but according to the former to

s Plin. Pi at. WJl. vii. c. $6. There can be no doubt of the
accidental omiffion of" millial ’ in this and the following1 paf-
fage of Pliny, and that the numbers fhould be 720,000, and
480,000, that is fo many years of days. Cicero indeed
makes the Chaldaean records amount to only 470,000 ;
“ cccclxx millia annorum.” de Divinat. 1. i. 19 j Diodorus
Siculus to cccclxxiii thoufand, lib. ii. Pliny’s reference is
for th.e purpofe of {hewing that the ufe of letters had been, as
he fays, eternal . Now as the Chaldaeans had a computation of
at the leaft 470,000 years, according to Cicero : it mud proba-
bably have been to fuch computations that Pliny meant to re¬
fer. Both Mr. Bryant and the Prefident Goguet cite Pliny,
without noticing the inconfiftency and probable omiffion ; and
the latter even makes ufe of the authority of Epigenes againtt
the affumed antiquity of the Chaldaeans. But I think Mr.
Jackfon has clearly {hewn that the reading in Pliny is erro¬
neous. See his Chronological Antiquities, vol. i.218. For the
reckoning of Callifthenes, fee Simplii eius, Comment, in Ariftot.
de Coelo, lib. ii.

only

SERMON V.

225

only nineteen hundred and three. Now
feven hundred and twenty tlioufand days
make, as nearly as can be, nineteen hundred
and fevcnty-one years : and as Epigenes is
thought to have been fixty-eight years polle-
rior to Callifthenes, the accounts may be faid
to agree exactly.

It can fcarcely by any reafonable man be
thought, that we are not going upon fure
grounds in fuch calculations of the age of
the world, when the fame method of com¬
putation ferves to bring into agreement,
(much more nearly than could be expected)
not only the ancient Phoenician, Egyptian,
Chaldcean and Hebrew accounts, but the
more recently difcovered annals of China
and India ! I lhall not pretend to difcufs
the very curious but intricate queltion rela¬
tive to the differences fubfifting between
the Hebrew and Greek chronology of the
Scriptures ; very learned men having be¬
llowed extraordinary attention on the fub-
jecC, without producing on either fide that
univerfal confent which might have been ex-

* See note 9,

p 1

az6 S E R M O N V,

peeled from their very interefting and la¬
borious undertakings. Nor do I conceive
it to be of any material confequence ; be-
caufe though the Hindu chronology in this
particular wjlance has been thought more
conformable to the Greek than to the He¬
brew computation, yet, fo far as it exceeds
the latter, it depends on circumflances which
only become probable through their fup-
pofed agreement with the reckoning of Jo-
fephus and the Seventy. I think it is
enough for us to know, and with that I
fhall conclude, that, fo far from any hiftori-
cal evidence pojitively contradictory to the
Mofaic reras of the creation and deluge, hav¬
ing been difcovered, even now that the
whole globe has been traverfed, and much
new light thrown upon the fubject, what
has moll recently come to our knowledge,
fo far as it can be thought to have any
foundation in truth, feems peculiarly ca¬
pable of being brought to agree with all
the other annals of the world : that all the
chronological tables, which have any proper
hiftorical records at all to fupport them,
are ltriclly pojidiluvian , while fuch as feem

SERMON V.

227

to carry us back to a former Rate of the
globe are either manifeftly and indiiputa-
bly fabulous, or, however corrupted in nu¬
merous inftances, contain fufiicient marks
of being all derived alike from divine re¬
velation, or patriarchal tradition.

NOTES

' '

, . . - - . " -

< -

. •

- — . ' ■/ '

•. 1 , • • v-

, ■

* . <• - . V v . r *

, . • , ■

; r

> . /■ \

NOTES TO SERMON V.

Page 202, . note (i)*

To abandon our laws and our Jlatutes , &c. to make way
for the fuperior JyJlem of perfectibility.']

“ Law tends, no lei’s than creeds, and catechifms,.and
“ tefts, to fix the human mind in a ftagnant condition,
« and to fubftitute a principle of permanence in the
cc room of that unceajing perfectibility , which is the
(C only falubrious element of mind.” Pol. Juft. vol. ii.

397 .

Nothing can be more difficult than to fatisfy the de¬
mands of Deifts and Infidels. An immutable and per¬
manent fyftem, it feems, is in no manner admiffible ;
and yet there is no objection to the Chriftian religion
more frequently or more confidently infilled on, than
its want of univerfality, its late appearance, and its^
gradual propagation. This was the chief argument ot
Mr. Blount’s famous book, which he chofe to call T be
Oracles of Reafon. He was ably anfwered, as is well
known, by Dr. Leland, and by Dr. Clarke, in his Evi¬
dences of Natural and Revealed Religion . Such a fcheme
of Revelation has alfo often been {hewn to be analogous
to the ordinary dilpenlations of God’s providence, par-
ticularly by Bifhop Butler, in his celebrated work, and
by Dr. Leland and Bilhop Conybeare, in their A.n-
fwers to Tin dal’s Chrifhanity as old as the Creation . See
alfo Law’s Theory of Religion , with the references, p. 5*
and Mr. Bryant on the JLuthenticity of the Scriptures .

If we required any new cafe of analogy, perhaps a
flronger could not be found, than in th e favourite fcheme
of perfectibility , which modern Deifts make fuch a ftir
about y for perfection here, as a gift of God, would, no

doubt,* have been comparatively as acceptable to man,

a 3 as

23°

NOTES TO SERMON V.

as falvation hereafter ; efpecially fuch a date of perfec¬
tion as has been held to be atta'mable ; namely, the uni-
verfal prevalence of omnipotent truth , and the entire fub-
jeCtion of matter to mind: fo that the foul fhall be free
from all error and weaknefs, and the body relealed
from the apprehenfion, and even from the droke of
death. [ Godwin ] For the Creator, who fird placed us
in this date of never-cea/ing perfectibility, could adur-
edly as eafily have rendered us invulnerable, perfect,
and immortal at once. Roudeau, upon the general
principle of perfectibility, goes fo far as to fugged the
podibility that many 66 Animaux antropoformes fuch
as (( les orang-outans , pongos , enjokos, beggos , man -
<c drilles & c. may yet turn out to be “ veritables
(e hommes ” when proper opportunities occur for them,
“ dev elopper leurs facultesA Outrages, tom. i. p. 152.
But to be ferious.

If the fyftem of perfectibility fo much talked of is at
all founded in faCt, it fhould certainly tend to filence
all objections again ft Revelation on the fcore of its
prefen t apparent want of univerfality, its gradual pro-
grefs, and the date of trial and probation, in which it
places us. For not only has Chridianity, in its intro¬
duction and edabiidrment, been thus conformable to all
that we can colleCt of God’s providence from a view of
nature ; but it happens to be befides, in itfelf, the mod
glorious fcheme of perfectibility that ever was propofed
to the world.

cc There is not, in my opinion,” fays the immortal
Addifon, ee a more pleafing and triumphant confidera-
u tion in religion, than this of the' perpetual progrefs,
<£ which the foul makes towards the perfection of its
u nature, without ever arriving at a period in it. To
i( look upon the foul as going on from drength to
<c drength ; to condder, that {he is to diine for ever
u with new acceffions of glory, and brighten to all

eternity ; that die will be dill adding virtue to vir-
ce tue, and knowledge to knowledge, carries in it fome-
(i thing wonderfully agreeable to that ambition, which
i£ is natural to the mind of man. Nay, it mud be a
“ profpeCt pleafing to God himlelf, to lee his creation
(,i tor ever beautifying in his eyes, and drawing nearer
(< to him, by greater degrees of refemblance. Methinks

<f this

NOTES TO SERMON V.

23 L

« this Angle confideration of the progrefs of a finite
iC J'pirit to perfection, will be fufficient to extinguilh all
envy in inferior natures, and all contempt in lupciior.
«-The cherubim, which now appears as a God to a
“ human foul, knows very well, that the period will
come about in eternity, when the human foul fhall
(C be as perfect as he himfelf now is : nay, when fhe
« {hall look down upon that degree of perfe&ion, as
ci much as die now falls fhort of it, &c. Spectator ,
No. TIT. See alfo an excellent Difcourfe by Seed, in
the 2d vol. of his Pofibumous Works, on the Chriftian
life being a progrefiive fiate ; and compare Philippians

111. 12, 1 3i ^4‘ , ...

What a picture of the perfectibility of man is this,

compared with the ftrange notions, and fanciful con-
ceits of many of our modern Debts! This lyftem.of
perfectibility has indeed God tor its author.; and for its
objeCl, not the worldly attainments of this life only,
but the delights of heaven, and the glories ot an eter¬
nity ! Every fy Item of perfectibility however muft have
fomething permanent, either for its object or its foun¬
dation. Mr. Godwin himfelf depends on te the under-
(landing growing every day founder and ftronger;
not from its purfuit of a phantom, but “ by perpetual
communication with truth d he great queftion be¬
tween us (till therefore feems to be, “ What is fruthP,f
or rather, What is the truth, and where is it to be
found ? If in any inftance it is clearly and amply made
known to us, we cannot, according to Mr. Godwin’s
own argument, have too conftant or too fteady a com¬
munication with it, lor the very purpofes of perfectibi¬
lity. Now it is undeniable, that fome truths are fo
known, as that we may aCt upon them with the great-
eft certainty, as the principles of Geometry, &c. Is it
the fame then with any religious and moral truths ? or
are thefe left dependent, and for ever fo, on tne cafual
difcoveries and deductions of human Reafon ? Tnole
who make truth the only rule of aCtion, independent Oi
the revealed will of God, muft certainly conclude the
latter to be the cafe; and how uncertain a rule this
muft be, may be well judged, fiom the deduction.?
which the learned Wollafton was himfelf obliged to
make from his general propofition, that “ Truth is dif-

Q 4 “ coverable

23 a

NOTES TO SERMON V.

c< coverable by Reafon.” “ I would have it minded/’
fays be, cc that I do not fay, men may not by virtue of
“ their freedom break off their meditations and enqui-
(( ries prematurely, before they have taken a fufficient
“ furvey of things ; that they may not be prepofleffed
“ with inveterate errors, biaffed by intereft, or carried
6- violently down with the ftream of a left or fafhion,
or dazzled by fome darling notion or bright name;
i£ that they may not be unprovided of a competent
ct ftock of prcccGgnita and preparative knowledge ; that
cc (among other things) they may not be ignorant of
“ the very nature of reafoning, and what it is that
“ gives finews to an inference, and makes it juft ; that
they may not want philofophy, hiftory, or other
£! learning requifite to the underftanding and ftating
<( the queftion truly ; that they may not have the con-
“ fidence to pretend to abilities, which they have not,
“ and boldly to judge of things, as if they were qualm
cc fed, when they are not ; that many underftandings
ce may not be naturally grofs, good heads often indif-
i£ poled, and the ableft judges fometimes overfeen
u through inadvertency or hafte : I fay none of thefe
u things ; the contrary I confefs is manifeft.” Religion
of Nature , fe£I. iii. 9.

It is true indeed, that he makes a diftin&ion between
Reafon and right Reafon: a diftin£lion that fhould always
be carefully attended to; but which is continually over¬
looked. But from this account it would certainly ap¬
pear, firft, as the learned author himfelf adds, that
6( not every truth is difcoverable by Reafon ;” and fe-
condly, that but few of thofe that are difcoverable are
likely to be duly confidered and appreciated, amidft
fuch a variety of hindrances, and fuch a multiplicity
of difqualifi cations.

The main difference between the Deifts and Chrif-
tians, in regard to the great and weighty truths of reli¬
gion and morality, is, that the former ltill think they
are only difcoverable in the way of fpeculation ; the
latter fuppofe, that all that is neceflary to be known all
concerning truths , as Bifhop Pearlon ftyles them, has
been difcovered to us, by exprefs declarations of God’s
will, in the Gofpel of Jefus Chrift. Creeds and cate-
chifms then, which fet forth thefe fundamental truths,

are

NOTES TO SERMON V. 233

are no more to be condemned, or to be regarded as ad-
verfe to man’s perfectibility, than the Elements of Eu¬
clid, or any other collection of principles. Fhofe who
will infill, that fuch creeds and.catechifms do not con¬
tain the truth, mull prove their point by reference to
Scripture, which is the acknowledged tell and crite¬
rion ; but to condemn them generally, is to beg the
queftion, both as to their truth and their pernicious
tendency. For if they are really pernicious, they can¬
not be true ; but if they are true, they cannot be per¬
nicious. If founded on truth, it cannot be matter ot
juft regret, but rather of the contrary, that the mind
fhou Id be brought to « a ftagnant” and fixed “ condi-
tion.” What harm, for inftance, can be likely to ac¬
crue, or rather, what good may not be expected to
flow, from the mind being brought into a fixed Hate,
in regard to the very important truths contained in
thole two beautiful fummaries ot the Church Cate-
chifm, which contain our duty to God, and our duty
to our neighbour? Can fuch inftru£tion, or fuch forms
of belief, and principles of conduft, be faid to take any
man out of a Hate of perfectibility P Neither can law m
general be faid to tend to fix the human mind in a llag-
nant condition, in any way that is prejudicial, while it
may be confined, and always fhould be fo, to tne mere
impofition of fuch wholefome reftraints, as have both
truth and equity for their foundation : for truth and
equity fhould be binding, without all doubt, and in\ a-

riably and permanently fo. .

Tells will always be mifunderftood and rnilreprelent-
ed : it is certainly not an uniformity of opinions, that
is either the fubje6t or occafion of them ; but clearly,
and indifputably, a diver jity of opinions and principles.
« The intent,” fays Bilhop Sherlock, “ is to keep

Diffnters out of the State, not to force them into the
ec Church and which, he obferves, is evident, from
the circumftance of “ their meetings being tolerated
« by the very Aft, (ill William and Mary,) which ex-
iC prefsly extends the teft to them. At all events a
great miftake is made, when they are confidered as
qualifications in themfelves, inftead of the proofs ot
previous qualifications, as they fhould be. they are
only enquiries, on the part of the State, into the ac-
' ^ knowledged

NOTES TO SERMON V.

knowledged principles of the individual. If they were
compulfory, they would manifeftly loon be ufelefs ; a
general conformity of opinion would render every fort
of teft unneceftary.

As to the queftion concerning the univerfality of the
Chriftian difpenfation, we ought always to diftinguilh
between the propagation of Chriftianity, and its effects*
“ As no man ever denied/’ fays Dr. Clarke, “ but that
66 the benefit of the death of Chrift extended back-
“ wards to thofe who lived before his appearance in the
world; fo no man can prove, but that the fame bene¬
fit may likewife extend itfelf forwards to thofe who
never heard of his appearance, though they lived
after it.” Evidences of Natural and Revealed Religion ,
p. 356. The univerfality of Chriftian ity, as a difpenfa-
tion of falvation, is certainly by no means to be mea-
fured by the extent of its propagation, according to
the judgment and opinion, not only of our own Pro-
teftant Divines, but of many of the ancient Fathers ;
notwithftanding Mr. Gibbon fo peremptorily after ts the
contrary, upon the foie authority of Tertullian. See
Kelt’s Vth Bampton Leffure : the paftage there referred
to from Jufdn Martyr, Apol. ad Ant. P. p. 65. edit. Syl-
burg. 1593 ; in which he not only exprelfes a hope,
that u Socrates, and thofe who refembled him in vir¬
tue, would efcape the divine difpleafure in another
life; but, with a peculiar allufion to the general bene-
et fits imparted by the divine Logos , dignifies them
“ with the appellation of Cbriftians ;” is certainly very
linking ; and, though it efcaped the notice of Mr. Gib¬
bon, has been cited by another Infidel for a very dif¬
ferent purpofe ; namely, to prove that the primitive
Chriftians were fo tolerant , as to account a virtuous man
a Chriftian, though otherwife an Atheijl. This is Helve-
tius’s reprefentation of Juftin Martyr’s opinion upon the
fubject, in which certainly the teftimony of that holy
Father is as much mifreprefented, as in the other cale
it was overlooked or flighted. Juftin’s expreflion is,
y.xv dheoi svofurSryctv, though they may have been ac¬
counted Atheifts; as for in (lance, HfoUA strop,

Xj oi oyoioi xurotv that is, ft gsrd \6ys ^tdxnxvts^, who un¬
der a fyftem ol natural religion, or Paganifm, lived
agreeably to the divine will. It has often certainly

been

(£

NOTES TO SERMON V.

been ftrongly infilled upon by fome of our beft Divines,
that the do6trine of the Scripture is, that the virtue ot
Ch rift’s oblation was effeaual from the creation to the
pardon of the truly penitent and fincere. See Barrow s
Sermons , on UniverJ'al Redemption , Serni. XL. See ado
Leland’s Anfwer to Tindal , Part II. ch. xvi. Seed’s Poji-
humous Works, vol. i. Serni. V. Edwards s Prefei vatvve
againjl Socinianfm , Difc. II. 109.

Mr. Gibbon' however perfifts in averting, not only
that it was the opinion of the primitive Church, that the
wife ft and moft virtuous of the Pagans would be con¬
demned for their ignorance or di (belief of the divine
truth, but that it is ftill the public doftrine of all the
Chriftian Churches, and particularly that the minifters
and members of the eftabliflicd Church of thele lealnis
ftiuji believe fo, as the undeniable conclufion to be
drawn from the viiith and xviiith of the Articles. .From
Dr. Chelfum’s remarks, it would feem that this aflertion
concerning the two Articles did not appear in the fhfi
edition of the Decline and Fall ot the Roman Empire.
If fo, its infertion in a note to the 8vo edition may be
regarded as Mr. Gibbon's laft appeal in proof of his
unwarrantable charge againft us. Now, affuredly, this
undeniable conclufton, which Mr. G. pretends to draw
from the viiith and xviiith Articles, will not be gene¬
rally conceded to him. ihe fir ft of the two Articles
merely ftates the Ample propofition, that the. three
Creeds ought thoroughly to be received and believed ;
and for the beft of all poffible reafons, becaufe they
may be proved by moft certain warrants of holy Scrip¬
ture. If Mr. Gibbon would infift upon interpreting
thefe creeds differently from other people, he alone
fhould be anfwerable for the conclufions he draws.
But the damnatory claufes of the Athanafian Creed are
too generally held to relate to the abfolute and indlfpenj -
able neceftity of knowing and embracing the Golpel ..
whereas they only relate to the keeping the terms of
our faith pure and undefiled, when once known and pro-
fefted : which I (hall have occasion to explain elfewhere.

As to the xviiith Article, we might almoft mbit
upon its aflerting the very contrary to what Mr; Gib¬
bon would infer: for it is exprefsly defigned to eftabhm

the univerfalitv of the Chriftian redemption, fo much
' * 10

23 6 NOTES TO SERMON V.

fo as to pronounce thofe anathematized who prefum-e
to fay that any are, or will be, laved, but through Jejus
Chrift. The Gentiles will not be laved by their obedi¬
ence to the law written in their hearts, exclujive of the
atonement and mediation ol Jefus Chrift ; though fuch
obedience will be the condition of Chrift’s merits
being applied to them, under any circumftances of in¬
vincible ignorance of the Gofpel ; as the not having
had it duly preached to them, or ever propofed to
them, as an object of faith. The Article was not
meant to be oppoled to the univerfality of Chrift’s
redemption, but to the dangerous clo&rine of indiffer¬
ence : for though the Pagan of old times may by his
virtues retrofpeCfively become the object of Chrift’s
atonement and mediation ; yet it does not follow that
fuch obedience to the law natural will fave thofe who
wilfully reje£t and defpife the terms of the Gofpel, and,
in fpite of our Lord’s own aflurance, that “ no man
“ cometh to the Father but by him,” perfift in trufting
to their own righteoufnefs to fave them, and to fuch
forms of worfliip as their fancy leads them to adopt.
The Article does not ftate, that the virtuous Pagan who
lived before the times of the Gofpel will not be faved
through the efficacy of the blood of Chrift : but it ana¬
thematizes thofe, who, in contradiction to the word of
God, and fince the promulgation oj Chrftianity , maintain,
that any will be faved except through the merits and
mediation of Jefus Chrift. And moft wholefome doc¬
trine this is, for “ in vain did Chrift reveal the Gofpel,
“ and in vain did he command it to be preached
“ through the whole world,” if men are to be faved
exclufively of Chrift’s interpofition. The Article is de¬
fig ned in fhort, not to ftiut, but to open the doors of
the Church; for fince not even the Pagan, to whom the
Gofpel was never preached, can be faved except
through Chrift, much lefs is it to be expe&ed that
thofe to whom the (e pure word of God” has been
preached, and the terms of the Chriftian covenant made
known, will be freely juftified upon any other terms.
To prefer , and to trujl /o, any other mode of lalvation, i9
now no lei’s than to “ defpife the riches of God’s mercy,”
and to negleCt the covenant of his grace, l£ which at the
< 4 fir ft' began to be fpoken bv the Lord, and was con-

“ firmed

NOTES TO SERMON V.

237

tC firmed to us by them that heard him ; God bearing
« them witnefs, both with figns and wonders^ and
a with divers miracles, and gilts of the ^ Holy Ghou,
according to his own will. Hebrews ii. 3? 4*

Page 204. note (2).

Rea-Con can never inform us whence we came , or what
is to become of us.] See Lord Bolingbroke’s Works,
vol. v. and the xvth chapter of Mr. Gibbon s Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire, already referred to in
the 22d Note to Sermon I. The former acknowledges
the inefficiency of Reafon to inform us ot our entrance
into the world; not indeed without expreffing his in¬
credulity in regard to the accounts we have : “ Reajon
« will tell us no better how men came into the world,
than hiftory or tradition does/’ And as to our de¬
parture from this world, Mr. Gibbon allures us, that
however Reafon may lerve to point out the probability
of a future jlate, “ only Revelation can afcertam its ex-
<6 Lienee.”

Page 205. note (3).

Nothing amounting to pofitive contradiBion can poffibly
he alleged againft the peculiar credentials of the Jewijb
and Chrijlian Revelations, fuel? as prophecies and mira¬
cles 1 Thou oh every expedient fiiould be tried to get
rid of the evidence of prophecy and miracle, yet thus
much is certain, that “ nothing is abjolutely incredible,
« but what is impoffible ” See Church's Arjwer to Mid¬
dleton, and Lengs Boyle's LeBures, Sermons xui. xiv.

Now that neither prophecy nor miracle is lmpoili-
ble, is at lead tacitly acknowledged by thofe who have
been mod eminent for their incredulity 5 Mr. Hume
and Roufieau particularly : all their objections turn-
in-, not upon the impoffibility of either, but upon the
incompetency of their evidence; and both of them
havin-, in the midd of their objections, fuppofed caies,
in which not only prophecy and miracle would be both
poffible and reafonable ; but their evidence, and the
tedimony concerning them, complete. Rouffeau in¬
deed fuppofes his cafe to be fo much in the extreme, as
not to be within the reach ot poflibility : but Mr.

Hn m a c

23 8

NOTES TO SERMON V.

Hume’s cafe is fuch a conceffion as affects his whole
argument againft miracles. See Dr. Campbell’s excel¬
lent Differ tation on Miracles , Part I. §. 3. in which this
is fully proved. See however alfo Dr. Leland’s xviiith
and xixth Letters in his View of Deijlical Writers , 5th
edit, and Dr. Adams’s Anfwer to Hume. Rouffeau’s
three requifites, which he infills upon as indifpenfable
in the cafe of prophecy, have been already (hewn, in
the Notes on Sermon II. not to be applicable to a
chain and ferles of prophecies 5 and therefore cannot af-
Ie6l thofe belonging to the Jewifh and Chriftian dif-
penfations : and befides that they are inapplicable to
a chain of prophecies, while the two former requifites
are unqueftionably not by any means effentially necef-
lary to the proof even of a fingle prophecy ; with re¬
gard to the third, an accumulation and coincidence of
many prophecies, through a long fucceffion of ages,
fuch as the prophecies of Scripture, is in itfelf demon-
ftration enough, that the fulfilment of them could not
be the refult of accidental circumftances. At all events,
in regard to miracles , Rouffeau would not be thought
to deny their pojjibility, if we may truft his own words :
for, in his 3d Letter from the Mountains , he fays, u Do
not conclude, becaufe I do not look upon miracles
“ as e {feudal to Chriftianity, that I therefore rejetf mi-
racles. No, Sir; I neither have rejetfted them, nor
t( do I reject them. There is a wide difference be-
“ tween denying a thing, and the not affirming it ;

<c between pofitively rejecting, and negatively not ad-
“ mitting it." Indeed the poffibility both of miracles
and prophecy is indifputable ; without the former the
world could not have exifted, and the latter is imme¬
diately conne&ed with the moft confpicuous of God's
attributes, viz. his omnipotence and omnifcience.

To allege, as Mr. Hume does, that we have the evi¬
dence of an uniform experience againft the truth of
miracles, is a petitio principii . It is firft incumbent on
him to prove , that there never were miracles; then only
could he affert a conftant experience in proof againft
them. But luppofe paf experience was thus uniform
in favour of his argument, it could amount to no proof
againft miracles in time to come. Becaufe God has
operated no miracles in five or fix thoufand years, may

NOTES TO SERMON V.

239

be not in the hundred millions of years, which the
world may endure ? May he not interfere to put na¬
ture one inch out of her courfe in all that time ? u Ex-
“ perience,” as Dr. Leland admirably obferves, “ may
<( ajjure us, that fa£fs or events are pojfible, but not that
the contrary is impofjibled* View of Deifhcal IVriters ,
vol . i. 317. See alio a fmall work by M. A. J. Rouftan,
entitled, Lettres fur VEtat prefent du Chrijlianifme : Lon-
dres, 1768 ; where this point is ably argued.

As to the probability of miraculous interpofitions on
the part of God, it is well remarked, by the learned
Profeflbr Jenkin, in his Reafonablenefs and Certainty of
the Chrijlian Religion , vol. i. p. 26, that i( it is an ex-
“ travagant thing to conceive, that God fhould exclude
“ himfelf from the works of his own creation, or that
« he fhould eftablifh them upon fuch inviolable laws,
“ as not to alter them upon fome occafions, when he
“ forefaw it would be requifite to do it. For unlefs the
“ courfe of nature had been thus alterable , it would
“ have been defe&ive in regard to one great end for
iC which it was defigned 5 viz. it would have failed of
“ being ferviceable to the defigns of Providence upon
fuch°occafions.’> Apply this to the cafes of Ahab,
Nebuchadnezzar, and Sennacherib, alluded to in Note
10. Sermon I. What horrible confequences might
have flowed, in each of thofe inftances, from the daring
defiance of God, had he not interpofed by miracles !
Confult alfo Frofeffor Vince s two Sermons on Chriflianity ,
1798 ; where he argues againft Hume, that “ the moral
“ good and tendency of miracles puts them upon a
ci footinor with the common phyfical eff’edls produci-
“ ble in the courfe of nature. The latter, being ap-
pointed by God to minifter to the phyfical wants of
u man, do not differ in principle from miracles wrought
<c by the fame Providence ior moral ends and pur-
i( pofes.”

Had God never, in any age of the world, interpofed
miraculoufly, we may judge what notions would have
been entertained of his Providence, from the conduct ol
thofe eminent Infidels of this age of Reafon, MM. Vol-
71 ey and Diderot : the latter having denied the very being
of God, fi •om his own power of writing againft it ; and

the former conflantly arguing againft the Scriptures,
. from

240

NOTES TO SERMON V.

from the frequent inflances of profperity and fuccefs at¬
tending unbelievers. But the Old Teftament tells us it
was not fo at firft : and the New, that henceforth fuch
differences and diilinCtions are referved for a future life.
See alio Inland's An fiver to Tindal , as to the probabi¬
lity of miraculous interpofitions. Part I. ch.iii. where
he very well argues, that though God be immutable
and perfeCt, yet, unlefs man were fo too, there is no
reafon why God may not add to his former laws, and
vary the methods of his Providence.

Mr. Hume is pleafed to afk, u What reply can be
ei made to thofe who affirm, that miracles have always
tc been confined to the early and fabulous ages ?”
£( The reply is eafy,” fays Biffiop Horne ; (( that mi-
sc racles were performed by Chrift and his apoftles, in
<e the age of all others efleemed the mod polite and
44 learned; and that the adverfaries of thofe days never
thought of denying the faCts.” Letters on Infidelity ,
Letter IX. But fuppoling miracles had been confined
to the early, and what Mr. Hume choofes to call in-
difcriminately the fabulous ages. There might have
been good reafon for this : and the very credulity of
thofe ages, fo far from bringing true miracles into dis¬
credit. might be efpecially alleged as one reafon for
fuch an interpofition on the part of God. For if they
were credulous only through ignorance of the opera¬
tion of natural caufes, (and fuch ignorance Rouffeau in-
fifts upon as the ground of all miraculous pretenfions,)
that very ignorance might give the more knowing
among them fuch a power of deceiving them, that
when the whole world were given to idolatry, it muff
have been peculiarly neceffary not only for God to in-
terpofe generally, but that the true prophets ffiould
have a command of fuch credentials, exprefsly to coun¬
teract the delufions of the falfe prophets and magi¬
cians. Origen argues very well, contr. CelJ'. lib. iii.
that when all the neighbouring nations were pretend¬
ing to have intercourie with their Gods, and through
their auguries and oracles to have knowledge of future
events, and to perform miracles and wonders, it would
have been ftrange and unaccountable, if the only wor¬
th ippers of the true God, who were taught to hold
thole falfe Gods in contempt, had had no predictions

apd

NOTES TO SERMON V.

241

and miracles to oppofe to Rich delufions ; if it were
only to vindicate the omnipotence and providence of
the Creator of the univerfe, to give them a proper
confidence in the grounds of their own faith, and to
convert idolaters from the error of their ways. The
paffage is admirable, and the argument particularly
ftriking. Camb. edit. p. 113. And certainly the defign
and intent of prophecy , at lead in thofe early ages, may
be faid to be exprefsly fo explained, Ifaiah xlviii. 3.
“ Before it came to pafs I {hewed it thee ; left thou
€e jhoul deft fay , Mine idol hath done them, and my
(C graven image , and my molten image hath commanded
u them.” And the Urim and Thummim of the Jews,
the oracle of the true God, has been thought to have
been exprefsly oppofed to the oracular images of the
Pagans. See Jack f on’ s Chronological Antiquities , vol. iii.
239. In Ifaiah xliv. 6, 7. prophecy is particularly in¬
filled on, as the diftinguilhing credential of the true
God.

The objections to the Scripture prophecies, on ac¬
count of their obfcurity, have been fufficiently anfwered
by many writers ; fee however very particularly Bifhop
Hurd’s ljl and Illd Sermons on Prophecy ; Leftlie’s Truth
of Chriftianity demorjlrated , p. 149. fol. edit, and Jen-
kin’s Reafonahlenefs and Certainty of Chriftianity , b. ii.
ch. 7. where the fubjeCt is very ably handled, and
many fubllantial reafons affigned for the obfcurity of
the genuine prophecies.

As to the lecondary and typical application of many
of the prophecies, fee all'o the fame authors, and Ice¬
land’s Vllth Letter in his View of Deiftical Writers .
There are fome very ingenious Letters upon the fub¬
jeCt like wife in the Orthodox Churchman’ s Magazine
for March and April, 1804. As to the point itl’elf of
fecondary fenfes, it is certain, that any fupernatural
prediction may as eafily embrace many objeCts as one ;
and at all events there are prophecies enough applica¬
ble to Chrift in a primary lenfe, to fatisfy any reafona-
ble enquirer, as has been abundantly {hewn by Bifhop
Chandler, in his Defence of Chriftianity , from the Pro¬
phecies of the Old Teft ament , 1725. and many other au¬
thors. See alfo Juftin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho.

That Chriftianity appeals to the teftimony of nfira-

Pc cles,

NOTES TO SERMON V.

cles, has been already {hewn, in anfwer to Roufiean,
Note 6. Sermon I. That fhe alfo appeals to the tefti-
mony of prophecy cannot with any reafon be doubted.
But there is one appeal of this kind recorded by the
Evangelifis, which is certainly' very remarkable ; I
mean the converfation which our Saviour is reprefented
to have held with the two difciples, on their way to
Emmaus, Luke xxiv. when, “ beginning at Mofes,
“ and all the prophets, he expounded unto them, in all
“ the Scriptures, the things concerning himfelf.” Had
not the Evangelift been fully alfured in his own mind
that fuch things were eafily to be difcovered, by any
who would diligently fearch the Scriptures of the Old
Te {lament, could any circumflance in the whole hi {lory
of our Saviour’s mini dry have been more worth pre-
ferving than this converfation, in proof of his Mefliah-
fhip ? Would none of our Lord’s difciples have fecured
this evidence for us? Would St. Luke, in particular,
who feems to have written exprefsly to fupply what
might be wanting in the other Gofpels, have omitted
it ? Would not the Holy Spirit of God have dictated
this important teftimony to the Evangelifis, had it not
been a matter of certainty, that the predictions of Mo¬
fes and the Prophets were perfpicuous enough to thofe
who would refer to them for their own conviction ?
The omiffion of this difcourfe appears to me a pofitive
proof of the Evangelift’s fettled perfuafion, that the fad
was eafily to be ellablifhed: for it would othervvife have
expofed the caufe he was engaged in, to mention it with¬
out necefiity. Common fenfe would have dictated it
to him to fupprefs a reference, which could not be fatif-
faCtory; and above all, not to have reprefented our Sa¬
viour as reproving his difciples for a flownefs of heart,
in not difcovering what was not to be found in the
writings referred to ; or, as others would infer, which
could not be brought to apply, but by art and fubtlety,
quibble and conceit. Several, I know, have endeavoured
to find a reafon for the fuppreflion of this difcourfe, as
for inftance, Dr. Burnet, in his Treatife De Fide et QJ-
jiciis Chrijlianorum , p. 120. c. 7. and feveral have at¬
tempted to fupply the chafm ; but it is beft fupplied by
a general reference to the Old Tellament, beginning
the chain of prophecy with Mofes, and purfuing it up¬
wards

NOTES TO SERMON V.

wards through the fucceeding prophets; not confining
ourfelves merely to the events of Chrift’s death, and
refurre&ion, and exaltation, as fome have done rather
injuaicioufty, (fee Mode’s Eifcourfe on Luke xxiv. 43.
and Doddridge’s Notes on the place, in his Family Ex -
pojiior , feet. 197.) but the general circumftances of his
minifiry.

A modern divine, Mr. Clowes, of Manchefter, a
great advocate for the reveries of Baron Swedenborg,
concludes from ver. 45. where Chrift is faid to “ have
“ opened the underftandings” of his difciples, that
their acquaintance with the mere letter of Scripture
was not Sufficient. But certainly the expreffion, ver. 25.
“ O flow of heart,” implies a capacity in the difciples
to. have underftood and to have applied the prophecies,
without any miraculous illumination . See the introduc¬
tion to Clowes' Sermons, pub. 1803.

The gift of prophecy being clearly affigned to Mofes
by our Lord himfelf, not only in the paffage referred
to, but in many other parts of the New Teftament ;
and being demon ft rable befides from the ftate and con¬
dition of the people of Ifrael, from their firft original
to the deftru&ion of Jerufalem, which, as Profefior
Jenkin has obferved, was the perpetual fulfilling of
prophecies contained in the books of Mofes ; we can¬
not have any difficulty to believe, that he had alfo the
power of working miracles; and thus the fulfilment,
not only of the Mofaic, but of the Scripture prophe¬
cies in general, may reafonably be held to authenti¬
cate all that we read in the facred hiftory of the mira¬
culous powers with which the Prophets of God, and
the Apoftles of Jefus Chrift, were feverally inverted.
One credential is a reafonable proof of the exiftence of
the other; a prophecy accompliftied is a miracle. See
this teft infifted on in Sykes's Connexion of Natural and
Revealed Religion , chap. ix.

Page 208. note (4).

“ The total disappearance of a ftar may probably be the
“deftrudtion of its fyftem, and the appearance of a new
“ftar, the creation of a new' fyftem of planets.” Vince s
AJlronomy yvo\, i. ch. 27. And at the conclufion of the 2d
vol. the lame learned author obferves, “ the difappearance

k 2 “ of

NOTES TO SERMON V.

«44

66 of lome liars may be the deftruCtion of that fyftem af
6( the time appointed by the Deity for the probation of
i{ its inhabitants; and the appearance of new ftars may
be the formation of new fyftems, for new races of
e£ beings then called into exiftence to adore the works
of their Creator. Thus we may conceive the Deity
(c to have been employed from all eternity, and thus
continue to be employed for endlefs ages; forming
new fyftems of beings to adore him, and tranfplant-
ing thofe beings already formed into happier re-
gions, where they have better opportunities of medi-
(( tating on his works; and Hill riling in their enjoy-
(C ments, go on to contemplate fyftem after fyftem,
<c through the boundlefs univerfe.” Dr. Herfchel has
given us a catalogue of liars formerly feen, now loft;
Phil . Tranf. 1 7 83- .

To prove that the world cannot have been eternal,
Dr. Sykes obferves, in his Connexion of Natural and Re¬
vealed Religion , that cc it implies no contradiction to
£i fuppofe the earth, the lun, or any planet, to be away,
Cf and the fpace, which now they fill, to be left empty:
€C and what is fuppofable, without any contradiction,
“ to be true of any one of the worlds of the univerfe,
“ is likewife fuppofable of any, or of all, the reft.
“ Now if you can fuppofe one world away, that world
Cf cannot exift by any neceffity in its nature : and if
“ one world may be removed without contradiction,
fo may all the reft ; and in courfe none of them can
Cf be neceftary in exiftence or duration

Page 209. note (5.)

Though the invention, improvement, progrefs, and
perfection of fome arts and fciences may l'eem to be in¬
volved in much obfeurity; yet it is undeniable, that
many of the mojl important may be traced back, as I
have obferved in the Difcourle, “ to fuch a ftate of
“ rudenefs and imperfection, as muft ferve to {hew,
that their firft invention cannot have been very dif-
“ tant and remote/' Among thofe of moft material
importance to man, wre may certainly reckon medicine,
furgery, and pharmacy in all its branches ; writing,
printing, and, as particularly connected with both, the
art of making paper. Even the firft difeovery of fire,

and

NOTES TO SERMON V.

and its ufes, is noticed in the records of mod nations.
The application, befides, of the magnetic virtue of the
loadftone to the purpofes of navigation, a difcovery fo
indifpenfably neceflary to the commerce and commu¬
nication of the different nations of the globe, may
certainly be traced to no very remote sera. Confult, on
the newnefs of arts and fciences. Sir Ifaac Newton’s
Chronology ; Dr. IVotton’s and Mr. Baker’s Reflections
on Learning ; Univerfal Hiflory , b. i . ; the third part of
Bifhop Law’s Theory ofl Religion ; Nicholls’s Co?iferences ,
Part I. Campbell on Miracles ; and very particularly the
Prefident Goguet’s very learned work on the fubje£t,
with the Diflfertations annexed to the third volume.

To talk of the lofs and revival of fuch arts as the
foregoing is abfurd ; for, if fome trifling arts, or fome
not of indifpenfable utility, may have vaniflied or de¬
generated in the lapfe of ages, yet, as Dr. Wotton, in
the preface to his very learned work, reafonably afks,
who hath fuflered, flnce the days of Tubal-Cain, the
ufe of metals to be loft in the world ? the ufe of letters
to be intermitted, flnce the days of Cadmus ? When
have the arts of planting, weaving, building, been laid
afide ? or the ufe of the loadftone forgotten ? See alfo
the Prefident Goguet’s Preflace, p. vii.

Befides the argument drawn from the novelty of arts
and fciences, there are circumftances connected there¬
with, which have not, as far as I know, been ever duly
confidered and enquired into; namely, the confumption
of exhauftible commodities, fuch as the produces of
mines of all forts. It is/propofed as a queftion in the
Lettres de quelques Juifls a M. Voltaire , whether there
was not formerly more gold and filver in the world,
than now. See p. 397. and in a note, p. 407. the ac¬
count of Agatharcides, preferved by Photius, of the
immenfe quantity of gold among the Alileans and Caf-
fandrins, in the fouthern parts of Africa, is particularly
noticed. Dean Prideaux has given us the fame ex-
tra6l, in his attempt to fettle the true country of Ophir.
Connection , Part I. b. i. where may be alfo feen the
immenfe amount of the gold fupplied by David for the
building of the temple. But in the fifth book the
learned author particularly treats of the J'uper abundance
of gold and filver in thofe early times, where he has

r 3 occafion

NOTES TO SERMON V.

24 6

occafion to fpeak of the extravagant fum offered by
Ham an, for the deftru&ion of the Jews, Efther in. 9.
See particularly pp. 311, 312. and notes f, g, h, &c. See
alio the account of the Spanifh mines worked by the
Phoenicians, in Gibbon' s Roman Hifiory , vol . i. ch. vi. 258.

It is generally admitted, by thofe who have treat¬
ed of the origin of arts and fciences, either profef-
fedly or hiftorically, that the precious metals were ori¬
ginally . found on the furface of the earth, and were
procurable in great abundance, without the labour of
digging for them : they were alfo employed for pur-
poles, for which they were not fitted by nature ; as for
arms, and tools to cultivate the earth. See Diod. Sic.
lib. i. The Egyptians put gold and filver to all forts of
ufes. Herodot. lib. iii. And this was found to be much
more recently the cafe with the Mexicans and Peru¬
vians, when the Spaniards fir ft explored America. M.
Bailly, in his eccentric Letters on the Atlantis of Plato ,
feerns to make it an argument of the great antiquity
of his favourite hyperboreans, that arms and tools of
brafs and gold have been found in abundance near the
river Jenilca. Now, befides that the want of iron in-
ftruments is a direcft proof of the little progrefs they
muft have made in metallurgy; if he had turned to
the 5th book of Lucretius , he would have found, that
fuch has been the progrefs of things from the firft.
Gold and filver were firft ufed, then brafs, and laftly
iron. So far, therefore, from fuch relics being any
proof of the perfection of the arts in fuch countries,
they evince the very contrary ; and whatever peo¬
ple they belonged to, fo far from being marks of re¬
finement, or of any great degree of perfection, they
plainly {hew them to have been in a comparative ft ate
of rudenefs, and in the very infancy of civilization.
And thus perhaps what we read of the profufe fplen-
dor, and riches, and copious ornaments of ancient
buildings, in (lead of fupplying arguments for the great
antiquity of the world, may rather ferve to dqmon-
ftrate in a direCt manner the novelty of our continents,
and even lay a foundation perhaps for curious calcula¬
tions in regard to the duration of our globe, in its pre-
fent habitable ftate : for that many minerals both of
ufe and ornament are in a ftate of actual exhauftion,

.we

NOTES TO SERMON V.

we cannot, I think, poflibly doubt. Coals have not been
in general ufe many centuries, and yet fome mines are
already entirely exhaufted, and forges and manufactories
at an end, that had been erected for the particular local
advantages of the fuel they fupplied. I am obliged to
cite from memory, but I am pretty well allured, that
there is much that is very curious upon this fubjeCt to
be found in Williams's Mineralogy , or Natural Hijlory of
the Mineral Kingdom , printed in Scotland.

The conceit of the growth of minerals , which feems
to have been chiefly founded on a miftaken notion
of ftala&ical depofitions, is now too generally ex¬
ploded, to afford any expectation, in the prefent ftate
of things, of an adequate fupply and replacing of fuch
confumed and confumable commodities; nor are we
fufiiciently acquainted with the operations of nature, in
the production of metals, to afcertain the probability,
or even poflibility, of any copious renewal of thofe ar¬
ticles : and yet it is calculated, that in our town of
Birmingham alone, the quantity of gold and filver an¬
nually employed in gilding and plating, and thereby
dij qualified from ever afterwards appearing in the Jig ape.
of thofe metals , amounts to more than 5o,oool fterling;
equal to the 120th part of the whole annual importa¬
tion of thofe metals into Europe, at the rate of fix mil¬
lions a year. See Smith's Wealth of Nations , b. i. ch. 11.
May it not admit of a queftion, whether the operations
of nature, abfolutely neceffary for the production of
metallic veins, the diflocation and fracture of ftrata to
afford room for them, and the formation of fuch §xten-
flve beds of coals, and other bituminous matters as we
meet with, may not be fo violent as to require that the
globe fhould be uninhabitable at the time ; and there¬
fore, that the origin or renewal of our race muft needs
be referable to fome fuch cataftrophe as an univerfal de¬
luge, or a general arrangement of the materials of the
globe; and that not very remote ? But this will be con-
fidered more at large in the Notes to the next Dif?
courfe.

Page 209. note (6).

When once we give up the Mofaic eera of the creation
of man , as_ fabulous , we have comparatively an eternity
before us. ] If the affumed antiquity of fome nations

k 4 exceeded

NOTES TO SERMON V.

exceeded the Mofaic account by only a few years, or a
few ages, we might be more difpofed to examine their
pretenfions : but when we come to 470,000 years, (the
Chaldean account, according to Cicero,) to the Egyp¬
tian, Phoenician, Chinefe, and above all the Hindu
annals, of millions of years, it is impoffible to conceive
the art of writing to have been fo late a dilcovery, as
to have fecured to us no records, that can be at all re¬
lied on. Dr. Toulmin, a modern writer on the anti¬
quity of the world, who, from the dates of his publi¬
cations, appears to have been, in the year 1780, only
allured of the immenfe antiquity of the globe, and not
to have conjedlured it to be eternal till the year 1785,
(what progrefs his ideas afterwards made we know
not,) fets afide all accounts of the origin of the earth
and of man as barbarous tales, fabricated in the rude
infancy of fociety. Now none of thefe accounts them-
felves can be proved to be older than Moles, as he
muft know, to whatever extent their hiftories are carried
back ; and yet their times are called the rude infancy
of fociety, by a man who infills upon the eternity of the
world. He tells us, {e human teftimony or tradition,
“ even granting them their utmoft latitude, are but of

the moft limited extent ; that it is only in the ad-
6‘ vanced Jlate of refinement , that the art of writing
“ could at any time or in any country poffibly have
t<r taken its origin and he adds, as if it followed as
an immediate conclufion from the above premifes,
<c Reafon will be found to announce, without the flia-
6( dow of hesitation, that the human Ipecies, See. fluc-
“ tuating in their increafe and decreafe, their barba-
“ rifm and refinement, actually have flourifhed, amidfl
“ the unceafing revolutions of nature, through an eter-
(( nity of exiftence!,J

This fame art of writing is a great ftumbling-block to
Deifts and Atheifls. If the firfl written hifiories give
us an account of the origin of things, they were bar¬
barous ages, and could tell us nothing but fables; but
when they want to make the world very old, then
writing is the invention of a refined age, and that age
nobody knows how remote. Voltaire forgets himfelf
fo far as to let us into this fecret. Moles, fays he,
could not have written the Pentateuch, becaufe at that

time

NOTES TO SERMON V.

time they knew no method of writing but thehierogly-
phical. They had nothing to write upon but wood,
and brick, and ftone, and therefore could never write
fuch a great book [gros livre) as the Pentateuch :
which is certainly a very final! book, as the whole
Bible is, comparatively. But when, on another occa-
fion, the fame carelefs writer (to fay no worfe of him)
has to fpeak of Sanchoniathon, that favourite rival of
the Jewifh legiflator, then, he was at lead contempo¬
rary with Mofes, and ufed alphabetical characters, and
derived his hiilory from the writings of Thaut, who
flouridied 800 years before him. See Lettres de quel -
ques Jiiij's , &c.

Page 212. note (7).

Mull have been as bold an impojlure as could well have
been attempted. ] u Neque vero cuiquam prudenti cre-
“ dibile fiet Mofem, qui non iEgyptios tan turn holies
“ habebat, fed et plurimas gentes alias, Idumaeos,
“ Arabas, Phcenicas ; vel de mundi ortu et rebus anti-
“ quiffimis ea aufum palam prodere, quae aut aliis
“ leriptis prioribus revinci polfent, aut pugnantem fibi
“ haberent perfualionem veterem et communem.” Grot .
de Verit . 1. i. §. j6.

When Mofes is accufed or fufpe&ed of writing in
conformity with the colmogonies ot other nations, this
at lead mull be granted, that they are as much in con¬
formity with him. Now it is remarkable, that while
the former are fo enveloped in fable, that no philofopher
pretends to compare his own fyliem with them ; 'the
latter is fo limple and lo clear, and fo connected with the
hiltory of the earth and of man, that it is particularly
open to examination, and capable ot being verified. Had
there been any foundation tor the extravagant chrono¬
logy of Manetho, Berofus, or the hill more ancient
records of Sanchoniathon, how could Moles ever have
dreamt of fucceeding in an attempt to convince the
world that none of thefe nations had exifted for to long
a term as 2500 years ? Mr. Volney calls Mofes on one
occafion artful and fubtle , and yet conceives he bor¬
rowed his cofmogony from India ; agreeing with M.
Dupuis all the while in afcribing fuch an age to the
world as is wholly and entirely inconfiftent with the

Genelis

~5°

NOTES TO SERMON V.

Genefis of Mofes. Had Mofes gone beyond the records
oi ancient nations, and carried his chronology much
higher , he might indeed with reafon have been reputed
at leafl as cunning as the Chaldeans, who, as La&an-
tius fays, (fpeaking exprefsly of their chronological ex¬
travagancies,) u in quo quia fe pofle argui non puta-
“ bant, liberum fibi crediderunt efie, mentiri.” Lib. vii.
14* fee alfo the notes to that chapter in the variorum
edition. But where could Mofes’s art or fuhtlety be, in
beginning his hidory with a fadt 1 o perfectly in oppofi-
tion to known and acknowledged records, had any fuch
really exifted as it is pretended, and in the very midft
or the nations to whom thofe records are affigned ? for
while Mr. Volney, M. Dupuis, and others, have con¬
cluded that Mofes borrowed from the Hindus, the
German New Expofitors , MM. Teller,' Eichhorn, &c.
luppofed his cofmogony was borrowed from the Chal¬
deans and Egyptians. And yet fo little did he refemble
thofe he is faid to have borrowed from, that the learned
Dr. Craven very properly enquires, “ How was it that
“ the Jews drew not waters from the fountains of
(C Chaldea and Egypt, or rather , whence had they their

clear and pure waters, when all the fprings were
<c every where muddy and corrupt?” See his Dif-
courfes on the Jewifb and ChriJlian Difpenjaiions , p. 31.
About p)Oo years before Chrift, Democritus and many
other philoiOphers, who maintained that the world had
had a beginning, applied themfelves to prove the new¬
ness or it by all the means that hiftory and critical
knowledge could furnifh; yet we do not fee that it was
ever undertaken to refute them folidly r though, had
*he pretended Babylonian and Egyptian antiquities
been true, nothing would have been eafier. See Gog-uet
vol.iii.a83. 6 *

Page 2 13 . note (8).

If all that can bereafonably done in this way has not yet
been dine , &?cf] Nothing appears to be more difficult
than to . keep etymology within its proper bounds,
when it is made the foundation of any fyftem. Though
the very learned and refpedlable Mr. Bryant laid down
rules for the condudt of luch enquiries, it is very
doubtful whether he was not guilty of infringing

them

NOTES TO SERMON V.

251

them himfelf ; and that many of his followers have
done fo, is paft all doubt. Etymologies therefore muft
always be left to tell their own {lory, and the difcern-
ing reader, to feparate what is reasonable from what is
fanciful ; for that the whole is fanciful can never be
pretended. As to the comparifon of ancient mytholo¬
gies with the Mofaic writings, this certainly alfo ad¬
mits of being carried too far; and the Abbe Houtteville,
in his ingenious difcourfe of the Authors for and again, (l
Christianity, has given a very proper caution upon the
Subject in his review of the writings of the celebrated
Bifhop of Avranches, M. Huet. The Bible tells the
Story in a plain and Simple manner; it exprelsly, and
upon all occasions, defcribes idolaters as apoftates; as
having “ gone aStray/’ and u turned abide” from the
true and primitive religion ; as having wilfully “ be-
<c come abominable, filthy, and corrupt.” Their fables
and abfurd additions therefore mull be to themfelves ;
the original need not be too feduloufly fought for in
the midft of Such rubbiSh ; it is miraculous , and there¬
fore proqf enough in itlelf of the divine authority of the
Pentateuch, and of the Hebrew accounts of the Deity,
that, when every other part of the world fell into fuch
corruptions, the knowledge of the true God was preferved
among the Jews. And it may be a fit anlwer to make
to thofe who think the Sacred writers had a motive to
impoSe upon the world in the ambition to appear as the
founders of a religion, and the firft ministers of a divine
revelation, that they particularly difclaim the merit they1
might have pretended to, of being the firft to promul¬
gate the true religion ; for they constantly refer to a
time preceding the very firft beginnings of idolatry ;
“ I have declared, I have faved, and 1 have Shewed,
<( when there was no f range God among you which is

the more to be attended to, becaufe Mr. Hume, and
many of his way of thinking, peremptorily infift upon
it, that Polytheifm, or Idolatry, was, and necefiarily
muft have been> the firft and moft ancient religion of
mankind. Mr. Hume even refts his argument on the
teftirnony of the moft ancient records of the human race :
<£ The farther we go back to antiquity, the more of ido-
“ latry do we find ; no marks , no fymptoms of any more
“ perfect religion.” See his Nat. Hift. of Religion, Can

any

NOTES TO SERMON V.

any thing be more perfe&ly falfe ? Again be fays, “As
(£ far as writing or hiftory reaches, mankind appear to
“ have been univerfally Polytheifts.” Mr. Hume, I
know, thought that true hiftory began with Thucydides;
but neither Mr. Hume, nor any other Freethinker, can
abfolutely annihilate the teftimony of the Bible. Could
Mr. Hume pretend that King David did not exift be¬
fore Thucydides? nor the Book of Chronicles, in which
the prayer and thankfgiving of that righteous king are
recorded, and in which is that noble teftimony to the
unity of God, not as a new or philofophical difcovery,
but as derived from revelation and tradition, “ O Lord,
“ there is none like thee, neither is there any God be-
ftdes thee, according to all that we have heard with our
€{ ears.” i Chron. xvii. 20. and 2 Sam. vii. 22.

Inftead then of fearching for refemblances in the
Pagan mythologies, which the Infidel is too apt to
turn again ft: us, as fuppofing all to be equally* my¬
thological, let us for ever infill upon the notorious
and marked difference between them; efpecially in re¬
gard to the acknowledgment of that great and fun¬
damental truth of all, the unity ol God : which not
only Mr. Hume, but Lord Bolingbroke alferted to be a
difcovery impoftible in the earlieft ages of the world.
“ This rational, this orthodox belief, this firft true
“ principle of all theology, was not eftablifhed, nor
“ could be fo, till— (when ?) the manhood of philo-
lophy.” And yet, like Mr. Hume, who calls Mofes
a barbarous writer of a more barbarous age, Lord Bo-
lingbroke allures us, the notions of the facred penmen
were plainly tbofe of an ignorant people, and an un-
philofophical age. And Voltaire, with his ufual flip¬
pancy, fpeaking of the Jews, fays, “ vous demandez
u quelle etoit la philofophie des Hebreux — Particle fera
“ bien court— ils n’en avoient aucune.” His friend
Diderot however lays it down as a maxim, that the
idea of the unity of “God could not be, but “ le fruit
“ tardii des meditations humainesf> It is incredible
how men will perfift in overlooking the marvellous ac¬
counts which the Scriptures of the Old Teftament con¬
tain, of ^ the being, and moft undoubted attributes of
God. Every Freethinker admits that the Jews were a
barbarous people, and lived in an obfcure corner, and

were

NOTES TO SERMON V. 233

were in no manner addicted to philofophy ; and yet in
their writings, the antiquity of which it is impoffible to
doubt, the pureft Theifm, the mod orthodox and fun¬
damental principles of all theology, and actually a mod
correct chain ofphilofophical realoning, are to be found.
Infidels thetnj elves being judges : for Lord Bolingbroke
and Diderot, whom I have cited, both admit that
Abraham was a pure Theilf ; and the former, that the
unity of God was acknowledged in the world previous
to his vocation, (of which there is no record but the
holy Scriptures :) and Mr. Paine admits that “ the
<c xixth Pfalm, and fome parts of Job, are true deifti-
(( cal compofitions, and are founded upon natural pbilo -
cc f°phy> dnce they treat of God through his works.”
And yet the facred writers made no claim to be ac¬
counted philofophers ; (fee Leland's View of Deifical
Writers , vol. ii. 107.) they left philofophy to infirudt
the heathens, as it ought to have done, and gratefully
acknowledged, that they had the additional light of di¬
vine Revelation ; fee Pfalm cxlvii.

As to the collateral teftimony to the truth of the Mo-
faic cofmogony, which Pagan mythologies are thought
to fupply, it feems to be a cafe fufficiently admitted by
Deills ; while Mofes is continually held by them to be
a plagiarift, and to have borrowed, as it has been ftated
before, from the Egyptians, Chaldaeans, Phoenicians, and
laftly from the Hindus. And Lord Bolingbroke exprefsly
aflerts it to be his opinion, “ that three or four ancient
« neighbouring nations feemed to have a common fund
« of traditions, which they varied according to their
“ different fyftems of religion, philofophy, and policy.”
Vol. iii. of his Works, p. 282. We want no more than
this to be granted; only Lord Bolingbroke in another
place is pleafed to fay, “ We have nothing to do with
ie the antediluvian world.” But we (hall infill upon it
that we have every thing to do with the hillory of the
antediluvian world, as recorded in the Genefis of
Mofes, where we not only have a regular account of
the creation of the earth and of man, and of the origin
of evil, but of the patriarchal religion, in which the unity
of God was an acknowledged tenet. How much more
right and reafon have we to infill upon no arguments

being

254

NOTES TO SERMON V.

being drawn from the poflibility of the world being
older^ and of there having been more ancient records !
If any exid more ancient than the Bible, let them be
produced : whatever is not extant in any fliape at all, is
out of the quedion. Are metaphyfical reafonings,
as Goguet obferves, to dedroy hidorical evidence ?
But even if any are extant older than the Pentateuch,
the date of the record of the cofmogony is not the
matter we are fo much concerned with, as the dates of
the events recorded , and the true nature of the primitive ,
unadulterated religion of the Patriarchs ; in which unquef-
tionably, according to Moles, the unity of God was a
didinguidiing feature; a matter of Revelation indeed in
the fird indance, but which the facred writers do not
appear to have been fo unphilofophical as not to have
enfoiced and fupported with fuitable arguments . In¬
deed, if they are not to be fuppofed to have been
infpired, I think it would be eafy to fhew, (nor
would the proofs which I have been at the pains to
collect be withheld, but that there is not room to in-
fert them,) that, as wmnfpired writers, they are better
Philofophers than any of the fages of antiquity, Plato
not excepted ; more iublime Poets than any of the an¬
cient bards, Homer and Pindar not excepted; and
more refpe&able, more honed, more undaunted advo¬
cates of the truth, than any of the ancient Theids, So¬
crates not excepted. Their defcriptions of the Deity,
their expofure of the abfurdities of idolatry, their forti¬
tude in the vindication of God’s majedy, and contempt
of all popularity, acquired with any facrifice of their
religious principles, are the points we have to attend to,
when we compare them with the prieds and prophets
poets and philofophers of Pagan nations.

As to the collateral tedimonies to the truth of the
Bible, fupplied by hidorians and other profane writers,
have been at the pains to collect them, that
they need not be given at length ; and I have already
referred to fome writers, in whofe works they will be
found, at the end of Serm. IV. Many more might have
been mentioned ; but whoever wifhes to purfue the fub-
j mould ^ means confult the references in Dr.
Doddi ldge s Lectures on Pneumatolog y , Ethics , and Di¬
vinity,

NOTES TO SERMON V.

255

vinily , pub! idled in 4to, Lond. 17 63. an admirable
addition to Grotius’s celebrated 16th feCt. of his firft
book De Veritate, See .

Page 215. note (9).

Put though fome have thought this pofjible, (MV.] The
origin of languages feems to be a refearch which anti¬
quaries cannot redd; ; but few theories upon the fuh-
jeCt feem to have met with any extend ve encourage¬
ment. As a theological quedion, it is fomewhat incon-
ddent to expert to trace the languages of the earth
back to any one common dock, as I have ffiewn in the
Sermon ; neverthelels it is a reafonable remark of I.
Cafaubon’s, that thofe languages feem to have retained
mod of the Hebrew, that belong to countries mod in
the neighbourhood of Paleftine. 44 Ed enim veriffi-
44 mum, linguas easterns eo manifediora et magis ex-
44 preffa originis Hebraicae vedigia fervalfe, et nunc
44 fervare, quo proprius ab antiqua et prima hominum
44 fede abfuerunt.” The fame is obferved in regard to
other particulars by Dr. Hartley, in his Obfervations on
Man , Prop, cxxiii. 4to edit. 1791. As many are dill bufy
in tracing out the analogy of languages, and fome the
mod remote and unconnected have been lately held to
agree, I fhall infert the following criteria , which have
lately appeared in the Edinburgh Review of General
Vallancey’s Profpeetus of an Iridi Dictionary. a The
44 Hebrew, Arabic, Chaldee, Syriac, and Phoenician,
44 are indeed diaieCts of the fame original language ;
44 and it may not be improper to mention the criteria
“ by which we fupport our affertion. Thefe diaieCts
44 have the major of their words nearly the fame both
44 in fenfe and found $ their verbs are formed of a fimi-
44 lar number of letters ; their moods, tenfes, numbers,
44 and perfons, are formed in the fame manner, and by
44 the fame letters or particles. All the fix diaieCts
44 agree in the declenfion of their nouns, and in the
44 genius of their condruCtion : the nations which
44 lpoke them were contiguous, fimilar in cuftoms
44 and manners, and their written hidory records the
44 faCt of their common original. Thefe are the criteria
44 by which we maintain, that the affinities of all the
44 tribes of mankind may be difeovered with tolerable

44 accu-

NOTES TO SERMON V.

t( accuracy. ” Too much certainly has been made of
very flight and partial refemblances, and the mania for
radicals has often reminded us of the expedient of
Pfammetichus recorded by Herodotus, and which upon
the authority of the word Beckos, as is well known,
transferred to the Phrygians the honour of being of fu-
perior antiquity to the Egyptians : but only for a
time ; for Goropius JBecanus had the ingenuity after¬
wards to wreft the palm from the Phrygians, by fhew-
ing, that though Beckos fignified bread in Phrygia, yet as
3i50C&Ct fignified baker in German, the Germans were
certainly the people pointed out by the exclamation of
the Egyptian boys. The enquiry however, when con¬
duced with fobriety, is certainly always curious, but
not, I think, fo much connected with theology as has
been often fuppofed. On the origin of alphabetical cha¬
racters, fee Sbuclford's Connection , b. iv. and IVarbur-
ton s Divine Legation , but particularly the Difcourfes
of the learned I. Johnfon, Vicar of Cranbrook*
vol. ii.

Page 2 iSj note ( i o) .

The celebrated A/lronomical Tables of the Hindus ,
however , have been fuppofed to J'upply us with data of much
more certainty .] I lhall endeavour to comprefs what I
have to fay upon this head into as fmall a compafs as
poffible, though fo many circumftances in the hiftory
of the world leem to admit of being brought together
in illuftration of the point I have to efiablifh, that
much that is very curious muft, I fear, be unavoidably
omitted. The world has been fo long amufed with
chronological extravagancies, as far as figures only are
concerned, that it is not to be wondered, that when
the Hindu records came to be examined, they thould
alfo be found to abound in fimilar perplexities. A
people whofe geographical fyftem of the earth makes
the circumference of the globe 2,456,000,000 Britifii
miles, (fee Mr. IVif or dy s paper, art. xviii. of the 5th vol.
ot th e AfaticRefearcbes,) and their mountains 491 miles
high, may well be expected not to be behind hand
with other nations, in their accounts of the antiquity
of their country : a people who could invent for their
god Brahma a year compofed of the multiplication of

two

NOTES TO SERMON V. 2^7

two thoufand ages, (each of above four millions of our
years,) by 360, may well be expected not to (land
upon much ceremony either with time or numbers in
the fabrication of a chronological fyftem. This is not
faid merely to expofe them ; it is their character by all
accounts, to be confummately fkilful in calculations,
and in the combination and refolution of numbers.
Sir William Jones difcovered in the duration affigned
to the feveral Indian Yugs , or ages, an arrangement,
exceedingly curious : to give it in his own words,
Ci the duration of hiftorical ages,” fays he, “muft needs
Ct be very unequal and difproportionate, while that of
the Indian Yugs is difpofed fo regularly and artifici-
cc ally, that it cannot be admitted as natural and pro-
“ bable. Men do not become reprobate in a geonietri-
cal progreflion, or at the termination of regular pe-
6( riods ; yet fo well proportioned are the Yugs, that
even the length of human life is diminifhed as they
“ advance, from an hundred thoufand years in a fubde"-
“ cuple ratio ; and as the number of principal avatars
“ in each decreafes arithmetically from four, fo the
“ number of years in each decreafes geometrically, and
(C all together conftitute the extraordinary fum of four
(e millions three hundred and twenty thoufand years;

which aggregate multiplied by feventy-one is the
Ci period in which every Menu is believed to prefide
(C over the world. — The comprehenllve mind of an Tn-
cc dian chronologift has no limits ; the reigns of 14
“ Menus are only a fingle day of Bramha, 50 of which
Ci have elapfed, according to the Hindus, from the time
“ of the creation. ” Sir William adds, that, poffibiy
this is only an agronomical riddle. (See the paper in the
lit vol. of Ajiatic Refear ches ; on the Gods of Greece, Italy ,
and. India.')

The celebrated M. le Gentil,who has done fo much
to elucidate the fubjeet of Indian aftronomy, confeffes
that at firft Ire difdained to meddle with fuch extrava¬
gancies. [Me moires de V Academic, 1 772.) It is to him
however, that we are chiefly indebted for the Agronomi¬
cal Tables which will be the lubjedl of this note, and
which may not. be treated with indifference, after the
refpedt that has been (hewn to them by two fuch
eminent and very learned men, as M. Bailly and Pro-

s feffor

NOTES TO SERMON V.

25 8

fefior Playfair. The great queftion feems to be, whether
they were derived from actual obfervation, and what
are the dates to beafligned to the particular obfervations
on which they depend. Both M. Badly and Profefl'or
Playfair, it is well known, refer them toadfual obferva¬
tions; and M. Badly has fixed on the epoch 3102 before
our sera, which is that of the Tables of Tirvalour , in
preference not only to the epochs 1 569, and 1656, which
are thofe of the Narfapur Tables, but to the epoch of the
Tables of Chrifnabourom , viz. 1491 of our aera. M.
Badly however is for carrying back the Indian obferva¬
tions dill further, namely, to 1200 years before the Kali
Yug, or to 4302 before Chrift : but this he profeffes to
be only conjedture. What M. Badly and ProfefTor
Playfair mod decidedly agree in, it I nddake not, is,
that the places of the fun and moon, at the beginning
of the Kali Yug, or 4th age of the Hindus, mujl have been
determined by affinal obfervation ; and that two elements
of the Hindu adronomy, viz. the equation of the fun’s
center, and the obliquity of the ecliptic, feem to dx the
origin of this adronomy 1000 or 1200 years earlier.
Now the Kali Yug commenced anno 3102 before our
aera; according to M. Badly, Freret, and others.

I do not mean at all to difeufs the quedion concern¬
ing the fadt or aera of the adtual obfervation indded on,
nor concerning the antiquity either of the Tables them-
felves, or of the celebrated adronomical work, the Surya
Siddhanta. A few obfervations upon each will be fuf-
dcient, as it is principally my dedgti to examine into
the date of the quedion, as it relates to the chronology
of the Bible, fuppodng what is mod extraordinary
in the cafe to be true . As to the fadt — Mr. Marfden,
who does judice to M. Bailly’s very curious reafonings
upon the lubjedt, and to the Indians’ early knowledge
of adronomy, and fome parts of mathematics connected
therewith, is difpofed to queftion the verity and poffibility
of fuch an obfervation, at fuch a period, and conceives
that the fuppofed conjunction was later, and fought
for as an epoch, and calculated retrofpectivcly ; [Phil.
Tranfqffiions , 1790;] and he {hews it to have been wide¬
ly mifcalculated. Mr. Bentley’s calculations in the
6th vol. of the Adatic Refearches, to fhew that fuch
^epochs might be aflumed without much hazard of any
• • . ; perceptible

NOTES TO SERMON V.

A59

perceptible variation, are certainly very curious, and
mu ft be well known to every aftronomer : his conjec¬
tures concerning the age of the Surya Siddhanta do
not appear to be generally aflented to. As to the epoch
of 3 102, which M. Bailly fixes on, he acknowledges to
have chofen it in preference to others ; firft, becaufe
there was an eclipfe at that time; and fecondly, becaufe
there was, according to the Indians, a conjunction of
all the planets. But this latter circumftance was not
true; and M. Bailly him felf fays, the appearance of
Venus mu ft have been afliimed through “ le gout du
* k merveilleux.” See the Difcours Preliminaire to his
Ajlronomie Indicnne , &c. p. 28; and confult Mr. Marf-
den’s paper in the Phil. Tranjadiions already referred to.

It is not however with the fadt itfelf that we have fo
much concern at prefent, as I obferved before, as with
the evidence M. Bailly would adduce in corroboration
of the point he withes to prove ; and which led him
into a courfe of chronological researches by no means
undeferving our regard ; as I think they particularly
ferve to (hew, whatever M. Bailly ’s real intention might
be in bringing them forward, that, of all the embarraffed
and extravagant computations of antiquity, none can
with any reafon be thought to afcend higher than the
patriarchal ages, nor with any clearnefs beyond the
flood. It feems pretty generally agreed, that of all
fciences aftronomy was the earlieft cultivated ; and
there is great reafon why it fliould have been fo. For
in the night, the ancients probably had no other guide
but the ftars ; and, at all events, no other means of mark¬
ing time, than by the riling and fetting of the different
conftellations. [ ' AJJem annus de Ajironom. Arabum , §.i.J
So that fome imagined that Adam and Eve had correct
notions of aftronomy in frilled into them for their ufe ;
(fee the Almagejl of Ricciolus :) a conceit which, however
fanciful, at leaft ferves to {hew the great and almoft in-
difpen fable importance attributed to the fcience in
early ages : and we know that Jofephus accounted^ for
the longevity of the Patriarchs, by the neceflity there
was that they fhould outlive the period of th& annus
magnus, (600 years.) for aftronomical purpoles; and his
references upon this head are numerous. Ant. Jud. lib. i.
ch. iii. §.9* ( 1 he Chaldfean Neros was a term of 600

s 2 years.)

26o

NOTES TO SERMON V.

years.) Nor is it out of our way to notice what lie
lays of the proficiency of the family of Seth in the
knowledge of aftronomy, and of the pillars they erected
to preferve their obfervations ; for M. le Gentil, in his
paper on the Indian aftronomy in the Memoir es de V Aca-
demie 1782, inclines to think that even the preceffion of
the equinoxes was known before the flood, and that
there was much more than time for fuch a difeovery
from Adam, according to the chronology of the LXX.
and Jofephus; and that this was one of the pieces of
knowledge preferved by Noah; in which alfo M. Cafiini
feems to agree with him. He even obferves, that the In¬
dian Tables we are particularly treating of have a lapi¬
dary form, and conjectures therefore that they were
originally engraved on {tones ; and as they feem to af-
cend beyond the deluge, they might have been pre¬
ferved through it; a circumftance which, he himfelf
adds, Jofephus feems to confirm, with evident allufion
to Seth’s pillars. But to return to M. Bailly. In the
Preliminary Difcourfe to his Indian Aftronomy, he feeks
to eftablifh the certainty of the third Indian age, and
to reduce it to a near conformity with the Greek chro¬
nology of Scripture. M. Bailly’s account of the Hin¬
du ages is as follows.

The Indians count 17 ages from the birth of
Brama : we are in the 18th. — The firft: 1 4 ages
amount to “ mille cinquante millions d’annees in fi¬
gures 1050,000,000 of years. Thefe are evidently fabu¬
lous. The laft four ages are thofe which chiefly fall
under confideration, and according to thefe the world
is to laft 4,320,000 years, according to the following di-
vifion ;

The firft age .... 1,728,000 years.

The fecond .... 1,296,000 . .

The third . 864,000 .

The fourth .... 432,000 .

Thefe are the chronological extravagances which M.
le Gentil confefles he at firft difdained to meddle with.
The two firft M. Bailly thinks fabulous ; but the third
he is difpofed to admit as real, fubjedt to fuch reduc¬
tions, as the cuftoin of diftant ages feems fully to au-
thorife. No cafe feems more determined than that
the ancients had years of all lengths and deferiptions ;

NOTES TO SERMON V.

0,6 1

of two weeks or fifteen days, half a month — of one, or
two months ; fix months, &c. or thirty, and fixty days,
&c. All thefe were known in India, particularly that
of the fortnight, or dark and bright halves of the moon :
indeed both day and year, we are allured, in India,
mean no more than the Saros of the Chalda^ans, viz. a
revolution,

I have obferved, that M. Bailly gives up the two firft
ages as fabulous ; it is only the third and fourth that he
meddles with, and the third which he labours to e/la-
hlijh ; for the fourth, or Kali Yug, is generally admitted
to be the current age from the flood. His aim is to
fliew that the Hindus are not without hiftorical re¬
cords, which might juftify the chronology he contends
for. But it muft be recoil eHed, that when M. Bailly,
or any other perfon, is fo ready to give up an extrava¬
gant computation, merely becaufe it leems fo ; it the
Scripture account of the creation of the world is not
true, no reafon appears for confidering fuch a duration
of ages as either imaginary or exaggerated ; for the
great queftion is, whether the world is of the age
Mofcs affigns to it, or of immenfe antiquity , if not even
eternal. We are not enquiring into a difference merely
of days or years, or even centuries ; not how long a
patriarch lived, or a king reigned : but when the
world was firfi: inhabited, when deflroyed, and when
re-peopled. Thefe are epochs to be determined out of
an infinity of time ; for if the Bible is not true, Infidels
acknowdedge no precife limits to the duration of the
earth, and lome fill contend for its eternity. As dif¬
ferent nations however are known to have adopted a
variety of years, not folar and lunar only, but hebdo¬
madal and diurnal, if I may fo fay ; years of weeks,
and days; we certainly appear, by a due examination
into their modes of reckoning, if not to get a key ca¬
pable of opening all their myfteries, yet one which
may enable us to reduce many of their extravagances
upon pretty certain grounds, and by companion to
difcover what is clearly artificial from what may be
real. I have already mentioned in the Difcourfe, the
method adopted for adjufling the accounts of Call if-
thenes and Epigenes ; a circumftance to which M.
Bailly particularly alludes in his Indian Aflronomy,

z6z

NOTES TO SERMON V.

and which is certainly a very good in fiance of the
means that fhould be adopted for reducing the extra¬
vagant accounts of antiquity : but I think it may be
moll manifeftly (hewn, that many computations of the
ancients have either no connection at all with hiftory,
or are fo manifeftly artificial as to allow us to be very
indifferent about the real value and importance of fucli
reckonings as feem to exceed the Bible chronology, but
which have no hiftorical records to fupport them.

If I refer chiefly to the authority of M. Railly
upon this occafion, it is for the following reafons :
find, that his talents and ingenuity are univerfally ac¬
knowledged ; fecondly, that his teftimony on the fide
of Scripture is the more valuable from his known he¬
terodoxy upon other occaflons ; and thirdly, becaufe,
as he had in this inflance a favourite point to eftablifh,
we may reasonably fuppofe, that he has made all he could
make of the hiftorical records of India. In his Preli¬
minary Difcourfe then prefixed to his Traite de V AJlro-
nomie Indienne ct Orient ale , the reader w ill find Some of
the mofl curious chronological computations of anti¬
quity brought into fuch an agreement as is certainly
very furprifing, and the more to be attended to, be¬
caufe, whatever M. Bailly’s notions at other times were,
concerning the peopling of the globe, and the progrefs
of arts and Sciences, he was here certainly proceed¬
ing upon what he held to be an undoubted fa&\ namely,
that the petitions of the fun and moon in 3102 A. C.
were derived from actual obfervation. He acknow¬
ledges that the obfervation is tc affebtee d’une erreur
que nous ne pouvons apprecier qu'en connoiffant la
cc maniere d’obferver de ces anciens peuples.” How¬
ever the fadt he himfelf fully believes to have been fo,
and that this obfervation was further connedted with a
previous one, as I dated before. He allows the obferva¬
tion was not difficult to make, but that it appears to be
authentic and original, becaufe, had the Indians only
borrowed or adopted it, they mud have adopted other
things.with it, as the obliquity of the ecliptic, &c. &c.
which is not the cafe. But M. Bailly could not but be
aware, that any hiftorical record in fupport of fuch an
epoch would be more Satisfactory, than the mere fadt
of lb remote an obfervation {landing alone. He does not

admit;

NOTES TO SERMON V.

263

admit indeed, that the one would be more decifive than
the other, (though, in fearching for hiftorical records,
he tacitly , at lead, allows this :) but he obferves, “Si l’on
“ trouvoit un manufcrit Ind'ien , ou il fut dit exprefj ement
“ que l’an 3102 avant notre ere au minuit entre le 17
“ et le 18 Fevrier, les Frames ontobferve la lune dans
“ 10s 6° o', et lefoleil dans 10s 30 38' 13", il n’y auroit
“ pas lieu d’en douter : il feroit evident que cette de-
i( termination feroit une obfervation. Eh bien, ce que
“ les Indiens ne dilent pas, fe derive direffement de
“ leurs Tables. ”

But we muft confefs, if it can be fuppofed poflible that
fuch epochs might have been affumed, which Mr. Marf-
den and Mr. Bentley feem allured of, the want of any
hiftorical records of thofe times would lead us at once to
queftion the antiquity and originality of the very Tables,
in which the obfervation appears. M.Bailly however has
fpared no pains to difcover hiftorical records corroborative
of his fuppofition ; and as his purpofe would be anfwered
by eftablifhing the exiftence of the 3d as well as of the
4th Hindu age, he labours to do this, and with great
ingenuity ; which, though it may not have been alto¬
gether fuccefsful, is, I think, very inftru&ive : for from
thence we learn, that, among all the moll known nations
of antiquity, there was a fort of agreement in dates,
and revolutions, and cycles, which was really mod extra¬
ordinary: in dynafties alio, and many other particulars.
(See Faber’s Flores Mojaices , vol. i. 125? 126. and
Goguet’s Orig. of Arts and Sciences , vol. iii. 325.)
M. Bailly fixes upon the families of the fun and moon,
that is, the dynallies of Surga-bans and Cbandra-bans ,
as the antediluvian inhabitants of the world ; which
lie compares with the Peris of the Perfians, whom he
would alfo refcue from the gulph of non-entity, and
the demi-gods of Egypt. The utmoft he claims for
them all is, that they'lhould be confidered cotemporary
during the third Indian age, which he conceives to
have confided of lunar years, and which he reduces to
2400 folar years; which added to 3102, the date of the
Kali Yug preceding our sera, make together5302. And
according to Chioniades and Chryfococca, whom he
cites, the Perfians, it leems, carried back the year of the
world to 5307 ; a proof, fays M. Bailly, of their being
derived from the fame fource. Certainly the conformity

s 4 is

264

NOTES TO SERMON V.

is curious. M. Bailly concludes that the Kali Yug was
the beginning of the Hindu reckoning by folar years ;
and he thinks the princes of the races of the fun and
moon were poffibly defigned to fignify thofe who
reckoned by lunar and folar years refpectively. Rut
here feerns to be an inconfidency ; for if the computa¬
tion by folar years only commenced with the Kali Yug,
how can the children of the fun be carried back to the
third age ? a circum dance of fome moment, becaufe it
is one point with M. Bailly to prove their correfpon-
dence with the reign affigned to the fun in Egypt,
of 30,000 years: which, upon reduction into lunar years,
agree nearly with the 3d Hindu age, in which the
children of the fun are faid to have reigned. The
Egyptians indeed do appear to have reckoned by lunar
years or months before the flood ; and this ferves to re¬
concile their account with the computation oftheLXX.
and the Chaldaean reckoning: (fee Jackfons Chronologi¬
cal Antiquities :) but I queflion whether the fame may
be faid of the third Hindu age ; becaufe the term al¬
igned to it by M. Bailly, in folar years, multiplied by
360, makes exactly 864,000; but 864,000 divided by
08, leaves a fraction : fo that the third age would
furely appear to have confifled of years of days , like all
the others. M. Bailly himfelf makes this reduction of
the feveral ages, and the refult becomes curious, from
another conformity, which mujl be confidered as in
one infiance at leaf! fabulous ; for the products of the
four ages feverally, divided by 360, amounts in all to
exactly 12,000, which is the very period affigned by
the Perfians for the duration of the world, which thty
alfo divide into four quarters or ages. To make this
evident, we mud underdand that to every Hindu ao*e
an interval was affigned of different lengths ; to the
jfl one of 8co years, to the 2d 600, to the 3d 400, and
to the 4th 200. The ages with their intervals are in
lolar years of 360’ days each,

id 4800 . in days . . 1,728,000.

2d 3600 . 1,296,000.

3d 2400 . 864.000.

4th 1200. . 432,000.

1 2000. 4,320,000.

Now as the conjecture of the Perfians concerning the

duration

NOTES TO SERMON V. 26$

duration of the world mufl have been merely fanciful, fo
in all likelihood were the Hindu ages ; as well as nu¬
merous other computations with which the world has
been amufed. For though M. Badly contends for the
reality of only the 3d and 4th ages, the two fir ft might
almoft as reafonably be infilled on; for the kings of
heaven and kings of earth in the Cbinefe annals
are laid to have reigned altogether exa&ly 432,000
years, which is not only the amount of the 4th Indian
age, but multiplied by 7 (the days in a week) pro¬
duces 3024,000 days, which is exactly the number of
days in the two firft Indian ages, and which, M. Bailly
fays, agrees with the two firft Chinefe races of Tien-
hoang, and Ti-hoang,and with the Dives of the Perfians;
as the third Chinefe race of Gin-hoang agrees with the
third Hindu age and the Peris of the Perfians : fo that,
confidering M. Bailly’s general opinion concerning the
age of the globe, we may reafonably fuppofe, that
though, in his Preliminary Difcourfe to the Treatife on
Indian Afironomy, he profelfes to fet afide the two firlt
Indian ages as fabulous, he would have been under no
difficulty to have found vouchers for their reality, had
he chofen it ; though nothing can tend more to prove
the fabuloufnefs and contrivance of the whole, than
the above numerical coincidences, whatever may have
been the origin of them, and the caufe of their agree¬
ment. The fact feems to be, that beyond the Mofaic
aera they are clearly fabulous and artificial, though all
of them may perhaps have been contrived and founded
upon traditions concerning both the antediluvian and
poftdiluvian date of the globe: for M. Bailly has cer¬
tainly mod ingenioufly reduced many ancient accounts
to a near conformity with the Greek and Samaritan
chronology of Scripture, though the numbers by which
they reckoned, and the unexpected refults that arife in
many in dances from the relolution and com pari fon of
thole numbers, mud dill induce us to fuppofe they
were not drictly hidorical, but in mod in dances fanci¬
ful and fuperftitious. Berofus’s 120 Sari, which he fays
preceded the deluge , at 3600 years a Saros, amount to
432,000 years. This then agrees with the Chinefe and
with the Hindus, but it is not the number of the third,
but of the fourth Hindu age ; it is not antediluvian.

265

NOTES TO SERMON V.

but poftdiluvian. This number M. le Gentil tells ns
reprefents in India a certain number of revolutions of
the equinox at 54 feconds a year. Memoir es de l’ Acad.
J782. The Chinefe again fay, that the heavens were
10800 years forming: now 10800 is the amount of
the three firft Hindu ages in folar years, with the inter¬
vals. Here then is a conformity lcarcely to be con-
fidered as accidental. Again, by the Perfian account
the earth is given to the Dives for 7000 years prior to
the birth of Adam, and then fucceeded the Peris for 2000
years : now the 7000 years agree with the two firft Hindu
ages without the intervals, and the 2000 with the
third Hindu age in the lame manner. I have not taken
notice of Mr. Bentley’s remark, that the cyphers were
added to the Hindu ages to convert them into poetic
years ; which the reader will find in the 5th vol of the
Afiatic Refearches ; though this muft certainly contri¬
bute to lhew how arbitrary and fanciful they muft be,
and how little they have to do with real hiftory ; at
leaft beyond a certain period: for as the Kali Yug is
clearly the current pojidiluvian age of the world, I
would by no means pretend to fay that the third
Hindu age is not quite as refpebtable, as a chronologi¬
cal period, as the Egyptian or Chaldaean dynafties, or
the period affigned by Abugiafar to the Peris, which
M. Bailly has made lo much of. My only idea upon
the fubje£t is, that the traditions concerning the true
chronology of the globe, both antediluvian and poft-
diluvian, are at the bottom of all the extravagant com¬
putations of the ancients ; that they have preferved
what is true, in a form more artificial than can be con¬
fident with the hiftory itfelf ; that they have in many
in fiances carried them back beyond the rera of the
creation, through what M. Bailly calls “ le gout du
{( merveilleux,’ and perhaps in the way of rivalry, of
which they have all been accufed ; and that many are
entirely aftronomical, and, as Mr. Bryant fays of Ma-
netho s famous cycle of 36525, belong rather to an
ephemeris, than to true hiftory.

Numberlefs have been the attempts to refolve the
number juft alluded to ; perhaps Mr. Bryant’s is as
limple as any : it was the amount, he fays, of the days
in a cycle of 100 years; for if one year confifis of 365

days

NOTES TO SERMON V.

267

clays and one fourth, in one hundred years they would
make exactly 3 6525. Syncelius’s account is, that it
was the multiplication of 1461 by 25, or the two great
cycles of the fun and moon multiplied into each other,
which completes the revolution of the Zodiac by the
reckoning of the Egyptians and Grecians. M. Freret’s
explanation of Syncellus’s account he himfelf thinks
original. He tells us the Egyptians divided their Zo¬
diac into 365 degrees ; the number of the days in their
year : but as the year was a quarter of a day (horter
than the true folar year, they added 36500 quarters of
a day, or 25 years, to their period, for the greater ex-
adtnefs. See Marjbam upon this curious number;
Shuckford's Connection, b. i. and Jack/on s Chronological
Antiquities. Jamblichus, it is well known, makes the
writings of Hermes amount to this very fum ol 3^5^5#
which might alone ferve to (hew how little it had to
do with real hi (lory.

I have endeavoured to exprefs myfelf as clearly as I
could, upon this curious point of Hindu chronology ;
becaufe, as it is fuppofed to involve a real fa£t, and a
real epoch, I think it the bed view that can be taken
of the Hindu chronology. For the folution of the my¬
thological and allronomical intricacies of the fydem,
I mull refer at once to the writings of Sir William
Jones, Mr. Wilford, Mr. Wilkins, Mr. Davis, Mr.
Bentley, and Mr. Maurice. M. Bailly’s endeavour to
authenticate the exillence of the third Hindu age, ap¬
pears to have brought out fome curious fadts in the
hiftory of the world; and though the precife limits
afligned to the fourth , or current age, mud Ihew how
much of conjecture and fancy there mull be at the bot¬
tom of their computations ; yet it is well to know what
is admitted to be fabulous, and what is the refult of
fuch reductions and companions with the annals of
other nations, as M. Bailly thought it worth his while
to enter into. Thefe I fhall now date in his own
words : for the calculations on which he relies, I mud
refer to the work itfelf. “ La duree du troifieme age
“ Indien ed appuyee fur la duree correfpondante de cet
“ intervalle donne de 2222 ans par les Chaldeens,5'
{i.e. 120 Sari, according to Suidas,) “ et de 2256 ans
« par Jofcnh et les Septante. Si Ton joint a ces deux
1 * “ temoiff-

268

NOTES TO SERMON V.

u temoignages ceux qui refultent des 30,000 annees du
“ regne du foleil en Egypte, et les 2000 ans du regne
“ des Peris en Perfe, on verra que Pexiftence et la du-
“ ree du troifieme age Indien font etablis fur les anti-
quites des fix plus anciennes nations du monde, fa-
ec voir, les Chinois, les Indiens, les Perfes, les Egyp-
“ tiens, les Chaldeens, et les Hebreux; et on aura, fui-
“ vant ces differens peuples, un tableau des difterentes
iC durees qu’ils donnent a cet intervalle, en exceptant
<c les Chinois, qui femblent en avoir conferve la me-

moire, et non la chronologie.

“ Les Septan te - - - 225b ans a.

“ Les Chaldeens - - - 2222.

“ Les Egyptiens, regne du foleil - 23 40.

(i Les Perfes, regne des Peris - 2000.

“Avec Pintervalle Indien - - 2400.

u Les Indiens, troifieme age. Race du foleil 2000.
<cAvec Pintervalle - - 2400.

u Par les 78 generations - - 2340.

(i II nous femble done demontre, autant que les fails
u de cette haute antiquite peuvent Petre, qu’il y a eu
un intervalle femblable a celui que nos livres faints
cc cornptent entre la creation et le deluge, dont les
“ Chinois, les Indiens, les Perfes, les Egyptiens, et les
Chaldeens out conferve lamemoire; non-feulement
“ la memoire de fon exiftence, mais celle de fa duree,
<c et avec une certaine conformite, en admettant,comme
6( cela eft vraifemblable, que ces difterentes nations
1‘ partent de difterentes epoques.” De V jijbonornie In -
dienne et Orient ale 5 Difcours Prelhnin air e, Part II. pp.
exxvi. cxxvii.

I am not myfelf intending to prove the exiftence of
the third Hindu age, or to give being to the dynafties
of the fun and moon, which have much more reafon-
ably, perhaps, been concluded to be only folar and lu¬
nar cycles: but fuppofing them to have been hiftorical,
and that the obfervations in the Tables of Tirvalour
were really of the remote age attributed to them, ftill,
fo far from their being in contradiction to the holy

a 1 here are computations exifting, (fee note, p. 222,) which come
within two ot M. Bailly’s computation, and which he feems to have been
unacquainted with.

Scrip-

NOTES TO SERMON V.

369

Scriptures, they feem exactly to carry us back to the
patriarchal ages, in which agronomy has always been
fuppofed to be particularly cultivated, and of which
times many profane nations feem to have preferved a
certain fort of chronology, much refembling what M.
Bailly has conceived of the third Hindu age ; that is,
mixed with fable, and requiring reductions and other
arrangements ; but thus indeed being capable of being
brought into a near agreement with the computation
of the Septuagint, Jofephus, and the Samaritan verfion
of the Pentateuch. Beyond this nothing feenrs at all
to be known or difcovered ; and this is much further
than the ablelt Orientalifts will admit, that we have
any true hiflory : Sir William Jones’s fummary of the
whole matter being, cc that the two following propo-
“ fitions be confidered as indubitably effablifhed ; that
“ the three firft ages of the Hindus are chiefly mytho-
u logical, whether their mythology was founded on
e( the dark enigmas' of their aftronomers, or the he-
“ roic fi&ions of their poets ; and that the fourth or
<( hiftorical age cannot be carried back farther than
(C 2000 years before Chrift; that whatever be the com-
“ parative antiquity of the Hindu Scriptures, we may
“ fafely conclude, that the Mofaic and Indian chrono-
<£ logies are perfectly confident; that Menu, Ion of
<( Brahma, was the Adima, or firff created mortal, and
“ confequently our Adam.” See Sir William Jones's
Works, vol. i. pp. 309. 326.

The commencement of the Kali Yug, by every reck¬
oning, comes near to the Septuagint chronology of the
flood; nearer to the Samaritan; and if 5102, which is
the epoch M. Bailly and M. Freret afiign to it, be at
all right, coincides exactly with Jofephus, for that is
the very term of years he reckons from the flood to
the Chriftian sera; and that every Hindu age is fup¬
pofed to terminate with a deluge, is well known. As
to the difference between the Greek and Hebrew chro¬
nology of the Scriptures, it feems to be a point that
never can be adequately fettled : but I apprehend no
man’s faith in the main articles of the facred hiflory
will ever be fliaken by the differences fublifting. There
is fomething Angular, however, in the fufpicions that
have been formed on the fuhjeet ; for while dome have

NOTES TO SERMON V.

.'270

fuppofed, that the Egyptian and Chaldean dynafties
were framed to invalidate the chronology of the Sep-
tuagint, which happened to appear at the fame time,
(fee Origines Sacree, p. 29.) others have apprehended,
that the Seventy extended the Hebrew account, in or¬
der to put the Jews upon a par with the Egyptians and
Chaldaeans ; though indeed a few centuries were but a
very inadequate addition for this purpofe. Thofe who
are curious in this matter mull confult the authors who
have written exprefsly upon this fubjeft, as Baronins ,
and VoJJius , Pezron, and le Quien ; and they will find a
very good account of the controverfy, under the article
Cbronologie , in the Didiionnaire des Arts et des Sciences.
The Preface to the 8vo. edition of the Univerfal Hi/lory,
1747, fhould alfo by all means be confulted, where is a
table drawn up from Strauchius , Chevreau and others, of
the different computations of time between the creation
and birth of Chrift, as adopted by various authors. Mr.
Jack fan’s Chronological Antiquities 'axe entirely in defence
of the Greek chronology; to a conformity with which
he very ingenioufly reduces the Egyptian and Chal¬
dean records. Attempts have been made alfo, as in
all other inftances, to fettle this controverted point in
chronology by the aid of aftronomy. See Bedford’s
Scripture Chronology demonjlrated by Agronomical Calcu¬
lations.

But whatever becomes of the queftion, the great and
mo ft important truths of the holy Scriptures cannot be
afle&ed by it ; the creation, the fall of man, the de-
ftru<5fion of the world, &c. Sec. And if any profane ac¬
counts fhall feem to be nearly in agreement with the
Greek chronology, it is, I think, as much as can be re¬
quired or expected. There is one obfervation I cannot
forbear to make with refpeft to the Indian Tables. M.
Bailly is very unwilling to admit, that the miffionaries
could have any concern with them ; and he particu¬
larly draws an argument to this purpofe from the cir-
cumftance of the Indian Tables of mean motions agree¬
ing neareft with Caffini’s, which did not exiff in 1687,
when the Siam Tables certainly did. If, fays he, the
miffionaries communicated the European aftronomy to
Afia, they could in 1687 only have known the Tables of
Tycho, Riccioli, Copernicus, Bouillard, Kepler, Longo-

montanus.

NOTES TO SERMON V.

271

montanus, or the Tables of Alphonfus. He alfo fays^
that the Indian aftronomy differs in fo many points
from all others, that it muff have been original. P. Ixxv,
Now it is fomewhat remarkable, that in M. Bailly’s
Tables of comparifon, Tycho Brahe’s Table of mean
motions comes the neareft but one to the Indian Table ;
and at p. xii. M. Bailly notices it as a remarkable
thing, that in the Narfapur Tables an annual inequality
is attributed to the moon, fimilar to what Tycho
Brahe had difcovered : an inequality not known at
Alexandria, or in Arabia. It is well known, that the
Chinefe Tables occafioned fimilar furprife, till Caffini
and Picard difcovered their extraordinary agreement
with the Tables of Tycho Brahe ; and upon queftion-
ing Father Couplet, (who was a very fine ere man,) he
acknowledged, that his brethren had reformed the Chi¬
nefe Tables by them. See Renaudot on Chinefe Learning ;
wTho adds, that he had heard the fame from Couplet’s
own mouth. Couplet went to China in 1650, and re¬
turned in 1680.

As to the motive alleged by M. Bailly for preferring
the epoch of 3102, becaufe of the fuppofed conjunction
of the planets, it feems trifling, and rather to referable
fome fanciful methods of fixing the epoch of the crea¬
tion ; two of which, as not unfuitable to the fubjedt of
this note, occur to me at this moment. The one to
prove the truth of the Hebrew, the other of the Greek
chronology of Scripture. i( A remarkable aftronomieal
“ epoch, ” fays M. la Place, in his Traits du Mecanique
celejie , Paris, 1802, u is that in which the great axis of
i( the terreflrial orbit coincided with the line of the
te equinoxes ; for then the true and mean equinoxes
<c were united. I find, by the preceding formulas,
(c that this phenomenon took place towards the year
<c 4004 before Chrift, a period at which the majority
(i of our chronologifts place the creation of the world.”
The author of the other I know not ; but his argu¬
ment is drawn from the revolutions of the great comet
which appeared in 1680, and wdiofe period was deter¬
mined by Sir Ifaac Newton to be 573 years : and he
makes out, that, according to the Greek chronology,
(I know not which computation he could adopt,) twelve
revolutions would exactly have been completed in 1680,

NOTES TO SERMON V.

272

as well as 230 revolutions of Saturn, 573 of Jupiter,
and 3600 of Mars. Such are the refults of retrofpe&ive
enquiries after aftronomical epochs, and which may
poffibly have been the very way adopted to fix the
commencement of the Indian Kali Yug. But this I pre¬
tend not to decide : if the epoch of the Tirvalour Tables
was derived from adlual obfervation, it is certainly very
extraordinary ; but we may not pronounce it impoffi-
ble. According to fome computations, and even ac¬
cording to Dr. Grabe’s Septuagint, 144 years might
then have elapfed after the deluge. M. Bailly confefles it
was not a difficult obfervation ; and as to the want of
inftruments, even Tycho Brahe had no affiftance from
the telefcope. The fcience of aftronorny, to a certain
degree, was probably of the firft importance 5 and the
invitation to the ftudy of it great in thofe eaflern cli¬
mates, where, as Sir Robert Barker tells us, in his cu¬
rious paper on the obfervato'ry of Benares , (i without
“ the affiftance of optical glaffes, the Bramins have an
(C advantage unexperienced by the obfervers of more
“ northern climates. The ferenity and clearnefs of the
c( atmolphere in the night-time in the Eaft Indies, ex-
66 cept at the feafons of changing the monfoons, is dif-
“ ficult to exprefs to thofe who have not feen it, be-
(! caufe we have nothing in comparifon to form our
ec ideas upon. It is clear to perfection ; a total qui-
“ etude fubfifts ; fcarcely a cloud to be feen ; and the
Ci light of the heavens, by the numerous appearance of
“ liars, affords a profpedl both of wonder and contem-
plation.’, Pbilofophical Tranfa&ions , 1777*

I fhall conclude this long, and I fear tedious note,
with the following paffage from an old tranflation of
a work of the celebrated Amyraut. C( Furthermore,
6C whereas it w^as well laid by one, that things of great-
“ eft antiquity are belt ; and the philofophers them-
(e felves, when they treat concerning God and religion,
£C extremely cry up antiquity, and attribute much to
“ the di&ates of their anceftors ; as if nature itfelf had
(c luggefted to them, that there was a fource of all
“ thefe things, from which they that were neareft it
“ drew the pureft and fincereft waters ; whereas, accord -
“ ingly as they are derived through feveral minds, as fo
“ many feveral conduit* pipes, they become corrupted

“ and

NOTES TO SERMON V.

373

and tineled with extraneous qualities, and contract
“ impurity. If there be found a dodlrine, that has all
“ the marks of antiquity, and there appears nothing in
the world that equals it, it ought not to be doubted,
ic but that the fame proceeded from him that is
more ancient than all, as being author of all things.
C£ E the language in which it was revealed be as the
“ mother and flock, from which others, though very
(c ancient, are fprung ; if it defcribes the hi dory of the
‘£ world, and of men, and their propagation upon the
<c earth ; if it affords the demondration of times, and
i( that without it the knowledge of chronology would
“ be more intricate than a labyrinth ; if it deduces its
<f hiflory from point to point with an exadd correfpond-
“ ence; if it clearly and certainly relates hiftories, that
“ are as the body of the fabulous fhadows that we fee
<( in the writings of the mod ancient authors in the
world ; who will doubt, but all which they have is
iC taken from thence, and that we ought to refer what
i( is therein depraved and corrupted thereunto, as to
“ its principle, and have recourfe thither to learn what
ic we are ignorant of? If there be found a religion,
(C all whole parts accord together with an admirable
harmony, although it has been propounded at feveral
“ times, and by leveral perfons in feveral places; if
16 there be a dil'cipline, a doddrine, a book, a fociety,
(t in which God himfelf fpeaks to men in a dyle and
“ manner agreeable to the eminence of his majedy,
“ difplays his jullice to them mod terrible in its ap-
<e pearance, difcovers his power in its highed magnifi-
u cence, and gives them to found the breadth and
“ length, depth and height of his infinite mercies ;
(< ladly, if examples of an incomparable virtue be found
4C therein, with incitations and indrudlions to piety;
te fuch as are not to be paralleled any other where in
“ the world ; ’tis an indubitable argument, that they
i( are proceeded from fome other than the human
*6 mind, or the lchool of man

t SERMON

# r\
•V

' -

t •* r

■

> . ' • -

r • *

• ‘ * ti Q • 1 - ;

....

; ....... I

■

*■ ; ■

‘ . *

■.

,1 '< 4 * . '

. * \

■■ > .

• , . < i

. ,

' • 7 * #

1’

SERMON VI.

Psalm xc. i.

Before the mount dins were brought forth, or ever the earth
and the world were made ; thou art God from ever-
lajling, and world without end.

Haying in my laft Difcourfe taken a ge¬
neral view of the chronology of the world,
as far as it appears capable of being afcer-
tained, from our prefent knowledge of the

hijlory of man; I propofe in this Difcourfe
to confider. what it has been judged poffible
to colled concerning it, from a phjfical exa¬
mination of the earth itfelf

In what manner the natural hiftory of
the earth has been reforted to, for proofs
either again# or in fupport of Revelation,
will be beft underftood from a brief view of
the prefent Rate of the feveral queftions that
have arilen upon the fubject.

T 2

And

SERMON VI.

276

And firft, there are ftill many who object
entirely to the Scripture account of the form¬
ation of the earth ; they think it altoge¬
ther unphilofophical, as well as unbefitting
the majefty of God. They think the fix
flays’ operations a limitation of God’s power,
as far as the Deity only is concerned ; and
quite inadequate to the produ&ion of fuch a
mafs, if every thing is to be referred to the
operation of fecondary caufes, (which they
generally pretend,) to which, for want of
any means of adtual meafurement, they
are in the habit of affigning whatever time
they pleafe ; for time is inexhauftible. Some
will not admit of any beginning at all ;
while others contend for a multiplicity, in¬
deed an infinity of revolutions ; and fuppofe,
that we are only tenants for a time, of a
manfion, the materials of which at leafl have
already endured for ages without limit. All
thefe invent and promulgate their different
theories at pleafure ; and as it is the conflant
practice to begin with letting afide all pre¬
ceding fyflems, we have, as it were, a new
one every day.

Other geologifls there are, who confine
their views more to the period and to the

pheno-

phenomena of the deluge, as recorded
Mofes ; and though thefe in their objections
generally run into the fame extravagances
in regard to the high antiquity of the globe,
yet they are contented to let alide the cata-
ftrophe of the deluge ; believing, with fome
realon, that with this , the other parts of the
relation will fall of courfe.

Now of thefe feveral objedtors and oppo¬
nents of Revelation, to fome the reply gene¬
rally made is, that the Scripture account of
the creation is no fit fubjedt for philofophi-
cal fpeculation : that it was not defigned to
be a philofophical, but a miraculous account,
independent of the common courfe and ope¬
ration of all fecondary caufes. And this
furely is the mod: reafonable reply that can
be made(r). Others, however, oppofe to
thefe adverfe theories, theories of their own,
either rendered conformable to, or elfe regu¬
larly deduced, as they think, from the very
words of Scripture. Thefe have great fcope
for their lpeculations ; and however unfa-
tisfadlory and unphilofophical many of them
may appear, they are at lead; as ingenious as
any others, and feem at lead: to have, in the
very words of Scripture, (what the reft cer-

t 3 tairdv

278 SER M O N VI.

tainly want,) fome lure foundation to fup-
port them.

It is thus that one very eminent naturalift,
and very pious Chriftian (*), who has parti¬
cularly diftinguifhed himfelf by his zealous
endeavours to item the torrent of modern
infidelity, has fuppofed that, confxftently
with the defcription of Mofes, the arrange¬
ment of the chaos could only have com¬
menced with the introduction of fome active
principle among the other elementary ma¬
terials, capable of producing what he calls a
itate of liquidity ; and this principle, upon
philofophical grounds, he conceives to have
been that firit grand difplay of light, fpoken
of in the Genefis, as proceeding, not from
any phyfical fource or caufe whatfoever, but
folely from the power and will of God.

This introduction of light into the chaotic
rnafs is made the beginning of a courfe of
JiicceJJive and diftincl operations, which feems
:to be abfolutely neceffary to account for the
prefent ltruCture of the globe, though too
generally overlooked ; for which, if we are
to find a philofophical reafon, it mull fine¬
ly, in many inftances, point to the procefs
of chemical precipitation from a fluid, the

molt.

SERMON VI.

279

moft uncertain of all operations to judge of,
as a pajl event ; and this, if the conjec¬
ture of the writer alluded to does not ferve
to explain it, may furely be expe&ed to baffle
every enquiry of modern theorifts. The
bails of our globe moft undoubtedly muft
have owed its arrangement to fome caufes
not now operating : to fpeak philofophically,
the chaos, wdiich teems to be univerfally ad¬
mitted in fome way or other, was probably
a more complex menftruum than any that
has ever fince exifted a; and the operations
that took place in it, befides being efpecially
directed by the will of God, as the firft dif-
pofer of all fecondary caufes, muft have de¬
pended upon a variety of circumftances, of
which we are now quite incapable of judg¬
ing. This is not only acknowledged by
fome of the moft eminent naturalifts of the
prefent age, but might, one would think, be
obvious to every peri on at all acquainted

a Anaxagoras fays, before the NS?, or God, fet things in or¬
der, 7 Tctv'VX ’gfu.ot.T ot, rj v 'TnctpvQijAvsi, dll thing S Were COnfllfed
together. And Anaximander called the fea, -Erganjj vygocalut
- juAJ sxvoi, the remainder of the primitive moifture. See alfo the
©EOFONIA of Hefiod, and Ovid. Metam. lib. i. Homer calls
the ocean , Tsvsns 'wxvTijari. II. xiv. 24 6,

T 4

with

SERMON VL

a8o

with chemiftry, and the extraordinary effects
flowing from every poflible mixture of he¬
terogeneous matters. Whoever knows anv
thing of the great and incomprehenfible va¬
riety producible by the elective attractions
of different fubltances acting freely in fomc
common mcnftruum, and the many different
accidents by which fuch attractions may be
influenced, fet in motion, retarded or acce¬
lerated, could fcarcely, one would imagine,
prefume to determine, that the circum-
ltances either of the folid or fluid parts of
the globe were at the period of their firft
arrangement the fame as at prefent : and

till this is afcertained to a certainty, not-
withffanding every help we may have de¬
rived from the advancement of knowledge,
all our fpeculations concerning pajl trans¬
actions muff be in the greateft degree vague
and hypothetical. ( 3 )

But though this is molf undoubtedly the
cafe, yet the very rapid progrefs lately made
in thofe two particular branches of natural
philofophy, mineralogy and chemiftry, has
led many to fuppofe, that the times are pe¬
culiarly favourable for fuch enquiries and
fpeculations (4). And lleajon has been bu-

SERMON VI.

2S1

lily at work, to apply thefe new difcoveries
to the fabric of the earth ; and in an avowed
difregard of Revelation, to account philofo-
phically for its origin, its firll arrangement,
and its prefent condition and appearances.
Had not fuch fpeculations already led many
to abandon their belief of the revealed ac¬
count of the creation of the earth, and
eventually alfo of fome of the moll impor¬
tant truths of our moll holy religion, I
fhould be among the firll to think fuch dif-
cuffions unfit for the pulpit. But as phyfics
have thus been forced into connection with
theology, it may be well to review the Mo-
faic account, in the face of thefe new difco¬
veries, and at the fame time to compare it
with one at leaft of the molt modern theo¬
ries of human Reafon. I fliall begin with
the latter.

Among the feveral theories ftricily philo¬
sophical and rational , (that is, according to
the prefent acceptation of thole terms, en¬
tirely independent of Revelation,) and in

which all the new difcoveries in mineralo-

• ^

gy, chemiftry, and meteorology are made
the molt of, I fhall feledt one, which has
recently appeared on the continent, as being

a 8 2

SERMON VI.

in fome meafure founded on the conjecture
of one of the molt admired foreign Natu-
ralifts of the age. According to this theory
then we are to conceive, that our planet is
a fragment of the fun ; detached by the
fliock of a comet, and drawn back to and de¬
tained in its prefent orbit by the force of the
fun’s attraction : that this fragment was de¬
tached in a highly ignited ftate, from its
parent mafs, which is concluded to be, from
its mojl obvious effeCts, a mafs of fire. This
fragment is fuppofed to form the nucleus of
our globe, and to have brought with it the
vaporous atmofphere of the comet, with
which it was enveloped ; and by means of
which it became incrufted in time, by the
depofltion of the earthy particles originally

held in folution. I need not, I am fure, de-

tain you with an account of the author’s
hypothefes, as to the feveral chemical ope¬
rations that enfued, which he regularly
traces, from the firft motions and combina¬
tions of the feveral fubltances, fixed and vo-
'' *

latile, to~ the compofition and arrangement
of our principal ftrata. The fum and fub-
ftance of the whole really is, that this theory
is not only, contrary to fome of the firft

. princi-

SERMON VI.

a&3

principles of geometry and mechanics, but
involves in it the notion of the fun’s being a
folid mafs of fire ; which has been lately
fhewn to be highly improbable, if not de¬
cidedly falfe, by many truly fcientific expe¬
riments and obfervations ; and thirdly, it de¬
pends on the vain affumption, that the true
method of the compofition of our mineral
fubdances is capable of being afcertained,
though no fuch analyfis has been at all ef¬
fectual, to the enabling us, in any one in¬
dance, to produce fuch fubdances, by any
mixture of the adigned ingredients. (5)

This may ferve, I think, as one fpecimen at
lealt of the application which Reafon would
make of the new difcoveries in phyfics, to
frame a world ! if not in direCt oppolition
to the Mofaic account of the creation, yet
manifedly in contempt of it.

Let us then turn to the Scripture account,
and fee what that really is.

Not rafh, or vain, or abfurd enough to
pretend to know the fpecific caufes, that
operated phyfically in the fird production of
this world, Mofes, in his relation of events,
is at once pious, rational, and majedically
fublime. It was his duty and office to re-
'* cord

284

SERMON VI.

cord the a& of creation ; not to meddle
with the mode of it : to tell us that God
made the world, not how he made itb.

An eminent Sceptic has obferved, with
reference particularly to the facred writers,
“ that there is no greater temptation to a
“ man to tranlgrefs the bounds of ftridt
“ truth, than to have the credit of being a
“ miffionary, prophet, or embaffador from
“ heaven V’ Had Moles then been unduly
influenced by any fuch temptation, why did
he not fuppofe, that thofe to whom he ad-
drefled himfelf would expert him to difclofe
more to them than he attempts to tell ? why
did he not pretend to be let more deeply
into the fecret, as every Pagan mythologift,
every ancient philofopher, and above all,
every modern theorifl: has conftantly done ?
Why do we not read, in his account, of the
%

^ 'O fjLiv yi <7 rsfi £ xrfoeus if/Xv hoc, tocutov vpa,;
on h 0 Qeoq 7 ov uguvov )£) -njv yry r> yvj rtv aopxrog

CLx.ctTctax.tvaros' \%upxi7v r<ytsptevoq 7 ov TaowaavTU, uvttiv
ccivTcc huyyuKcu' — r/f y ovaia. 7xv7yq ntgugyufycrSoii, uq p xrcaov
*3 uvutptxlq roTq ux.iM<7\ yrugv) TrjeruTo. Bafil. adverj \ Eunom. lib. i.
238. edit. Steph. See alfo Philoponus 7 repl Kocrpo irorfaq, x. «.
where are fome excellent remarks to the purpofe.
c Hume.

jumble

SERMON VI.

185

jumble of atoms, the combinations and op-
pofitions of the dry and the humid, the hot
and the cold ? why do we not read of the
prolific virtues of the fun eliciting living
creatures from the turbid chaos d ? Why is
there fo little faid of fecond caufes (6) in
this particular part of the Mofaic records,
but for this exprefs reafon, that fecondary
caufes thefnfelves were then to receive their
origin, and to have their firfi: principles of
motion imp relied upon them ? for in other
parts of the Pentateuch it is thought to be
no derogation from the majelly of God, to
defcribe him as operating by the interven¬
tion of fecondary caufes. This is a point of
fingular correctnefs in the hiftory of Mofes,
which no mythologift, no merely human
writer, has attended to. All fecondary caufes
are peculiarly fhut out, as they ihould be,
where the Spirit of God mull neceflarily
have been the foie caufe of motion, and of
all the operations that then took place. We
particularly read of the earth bringing forth

grafs, and other vegetable produ&ions, be-

• /

V *

d See Cudworthy and Unmerfal Hijlory, vol. i. and Dr. Leland's
View of Deijiical Writers , Letter xxx.

fore

SERMON VI.

2S6

fore the fun was appointed to fpread abroad
his rays : and as to the production of fowls
and fillies, cattle and creeping things, and
even man, the Lord of all ; no fecondary
caufe, in either cafe, that could be naturally
adequate or applicable, is afligned ; but the
fowls are made from the wrater, and man
from the dull of the ground.

Is this account irreconcileable to Reafon ?
What is it then that it tells us ? Not that
the world is eternal, which only a few of
the ancient, and very few modern philofo-
phers have ventured to maintain ; but that
“ in the beginning God created the heavens
“ and the earth let this expreflion, ac¬
cording to the idiom of the Hebrew lan¬
guage, exprefs more or lefs. That this crea¬
tion was out of nothing, feems plainly to be
implied c by the next circum fiance related
of the earth, namely, that its firft creation

c Chalcidius , in his Commentaries on Plato's Timaus, draws
the fame conclufion from this expreflion. See him cited by Bp.
Stillingfleet, Origines Sacra, b. iii. ch. 2. 278. See alfo Bar -
rows Sermons, vol. ii. Serin, xn. §. 7. and Theodoret. Hijl.
lib. i. c. 19. where is a curious argument to the purpofe. Buf-
ion has made ufe of this interval between the creation of mat¬
ter and production of light.

was

SERMON VI. <287

was deftitute of order, mere matter : “ And
“ the earth was without form, and void.”
As to the fubfequent redudlion of it into
order, and fucceffive creation of plants and
animals from the fowls of the air to man¬
kind ; to deny the poffibility of it is abfurd,
and to queftion the probability, a mere im¬
pertinence. For ’why might not the crea¬
tion be effected by fucceffive adts ? and why
not in a given time ? As for the diffindt pe¬
riods fpecified, and the proportional differ¬
ences in the productions of the fix days, it
is enough to affert, what Reafon cannot
controvert, that to an omnipotent and eter¬
nal Being there can be no limitations in re¬
gard to time or modes of adting, but what
are entirely dependent on his own fupreme
will. To Him undoubtedly a thoufand years
are but as a day. He might make the world
in a moment, in a day, in fix days, in fix
thoufand days ; he might have made only
plants on one day, and feathered fowl on
another, and creeping things and beafts on
another; or he might have made every thing
in one day, by his almighty fiat.

Had Mofes pretended to give an account
of the primary qualities of matter, and the

feveral

SERMON VL

288

feveral procelles by which the body of this
earth obtained to be what it is ; we might
well have fuppofed his account to be fabu¬
lous, merely from thefe two confiderations :
firft, that no knowledge of fuch procelles
being to be derived from tradition, or de¬
duced by argument, we could only know
them from Revelation ; and fecondly, the
revelation of fuch matters would be altoge¬
ther fuperfiuous, being wholly void of ufe.
We do not need to know, nor could we
therefore reafonably expe6l to be informed,
of the exatft primary modifications and mo¬
tions of matter, by which the world acquired
its prefent form : but to know that God
created the very matter whereof it is formed,
and that his divine Spirit reduced things to
the order in which we now behold them,
and even that this came to pafs in Jix days,
are all points of extreme ufe and impor¬
tance ; eftablilhing God’s omnipotence and
felf-exiftence in the fulleft manner, and lay¬
ing the bell and fureft foundation for the
pbfervance of the Sabbath. In regard to
which latter circumfiance, it mull; be re¬
marked, that we have here, and no where
clfe> a regular hiftorical record of the hebdo¬
madal

SERMON VI,

289

viadal divifton of time ; which is now, and
was in the earlieft ages, by all accounts, fo
very generally adopted. It has been lately
laid, that the Indians mujl have communi¬
cated this fubdiyilion of time, which was
exactly the fourth part of their month of
twenty-eight days, to the weftern parts of
the world ; and confequently, that we alfo
derive it from thence f ; and the remarkable
coincidence of the names of the days of the
week, and the circumftance of their being
refpedtively dedicated to the fame deities
and planets, is alleged as the proof of this.
But there can be no doubt, that as Chriftians
we derive it folely from the books of Mofes;
and the adoption of the names of the days,
though, for what we know, derived, as they
allege, from the Eaft(7), has been entirely
accidental. Mofes either wrote before fuch
names had been given to the days of the
week, or fubfequently. If he wrote pre-
vioufly, then there is no reafon to doubt of
his account being the true one ; if fubfe¬
quently, and he wrote only from his own

f Badly 3 Hifloirc de V AJironomie Indienne et Orientak. Dif-
cours Prcllminaire.

u inven- .

SERMON VI.

290

inventions, or borrowed what he wrote, as
has been inilnuated, it mull be granted, that,
inltead of adopting, it is moil likely he
would particularly have rejedled a divilion,
which muft have appeared to give fuch
countenance to the moll prevailing idolatry
of thofe times. The hebdomadal divilion,
though originally of divine inllitution (8),
might very probably, from the mere coin¬
cidence of numbers5, have led afterwards to
the planetary diftiniftion of the daysh, among
a people who had fallen off from the w^orlhip
of the true God ; and, as Maimonides re¬
ports of the Chaldaeans, would acknowledge
no other Gods but the liars, to whom they
made images and flat ues : to the fun, of
gold ; to the moon, of lilver; and to the reft
of the planets, of the feveral metals dedi¬
cated to them 1 : which clearly Ihews, that

S Philoponus <7rept Ko:rpto7rotia?, ?.oy. ae(p. 1$'. p. 282.

h See Lengs Vlth Boyles Lecture, p. 180 j Campbell on Mi*
racles , 218. Note; Jenkins Reafojiablenefs of Chrijlianity , vol. i.
101, 102, &c. ; Jackfons Chronological Antiquities , vol. i. p. 21.
Notej and Law's Theory of Religion,]), eft-, where he pofitively
affirms, in oppofition to Le Clerc , Not. ad Grot, de Ver. lib. i.
16. that the method of reckoning by weeks was much more
ancient than the obfervation of the feven planets.

1 Mofe Nevoch. p. 3. c. 29.

the

SERMON VI.

19 I

the oriental hebdomadal divifion of time, fo
far from being merely agronomical, was in
iome inftances at leaf! entirely idolatrous.
But to return from this digreflion.

That the fabric of this globe befpealcs an
origin much anterior to the aera aligned by
Mofes, depends on {peculations, which, how¬
ever cautioully conduded, may never be al¬
lowed to difprove a fad k, capable of alnioft
pofitive demon ftration(9). That the chief
ufe of this globe of earth is to be the abode
of man, cannot be doubted. The great and
moll: material fad therefore to be decided is.
When did man firth Hand in need of this
abode ? It matters nothing to us what the
world was previoufly ; without fuch an in¬
habitant as man, it could be no more to us
than what the wild and defolate and unfre¬
quented parts of the earth are at this day :
of which, as it concerns no man to take no¬
tice, fo need we not be folicitous as to fuch
a Rate of the globe we dwell on. Surely
our Reafon may be brought to altent to thefe
three propofltions ; that in the beginning
God created the mafs it confifts of ; that it

k The origin of the human race.

u 2

was.

SERMON VI.

292

was, previoufly to the introduction of our
great progenitor, “ without form, and void,”
whether in its firfl original ltate, or, as fome
writers have fuppofed1, by the diflolution of
a former Rate ; and that it was reduced to
the order we now fee it in, for the efpecial
purpofes of our race, by the immediate de¬
cree of God’s providence. In what manner
the Rrata became fo arranged as we fee
them ; what time was neceflary for the form¬
ation of Rich depofitions from a watery
fluid, or for fuch concretions from an ig¬
neous one, as we now behold, it may be
amufing to calculate ; but it can be of no
ufe or certainty : of no certainty, for the
reafons already Rated ; of no ufe, becaufe,
fhould the mere matter of this globe even
be proved to have fubfifled ages and ages
before the creation of Adam, and to have
undergone numberlefs revolutions, I know
not that it could be of any concern to our
racem. We date our title to the pofleflion of
it, and dominion over it, from Adam ; and
have no need to afcend higher. I fay from
Adam, not only becaufe we are told fo in

1 See Note (3).

® See Note (3),

the

SERMON VI.

293

the firit chapters of Genefis, but becaufe
our Saviour and St. Paul have alfo infilled
upon it.

One event certainly is recorded by Mofes,
to which the face of the earth might be
expected to bear teftimony : I mean the de¬
luge. Such a revolution could fcarce fail to
leave moll durable traces behind it; but yet,
in what degree, and to what extent, it may
now be very difficult to determine. But that
there are evidences of a fubmerfion of the
continents of the prefent earth, none can
deny ; and therefore, before we enter upon
enquiry how or when fuch diluvian matters
were depofited as we find them, it mull be
admitted to be extraordinary, that this great
.event, recorded by an hillorian whofe know¬
ledge of the face of the earth mull: have
been circumfcribed within limits of a known
extent, is not to be fet afide from any direct
want of evidence, even in lituations and
places not known to exill at the time he
wrote. Let us recoiled:, that it is of an uni-
verfal deluge that Mofes writes ; and that
he allures us the waters covered the very
tops of the hills. It may be fo, fome will
fay : on the tops of the hills in the neigh -

u 3 bourljood

SERMON VI.

294

bourhood of Judea he obferved fhells and
other marine exuviae ; the fpoils of a partial
deluge of thofe regions : and it was eafy to
perfuade his countrymen, that a flood, ex¬
tending over all that trad: of country known
to them, had extended over all the world.
But how might fuch a mythologiji have been
detected, when new difcoveries had brought
to light all that we have fince learnt of Eu¬
rope, Africa, Afia, and the whole continent
of America ? If the marine exuviae in one
part of the globe are allowed to be an evi¬
dence of a partial deluge, would not the
want of fuch reliquice in any extenfive re¬
gion, be a proof againfl: the univerfality of
the Mofaie deluge ? Here again then I muft
maintain, that the want of contradictory evi¬
dence ought to be allowed to operate as a
confirmation.

I enter not at prefent into the queftion,
whether the then continents were over¬
whelmed, and the bottom of the fea left dry;
or whether we now fee onlv the remains of
the very waters that covered the hills de-
icribed by Motes ; becaufe all I propofe to
enquire after is, whether there are not, in
all parts of the globe, marks and figns of

the

SERMON VI.

*95

the water having covered all that is now dry
land ? The poffibility of fnch a catahrophe
as the deluge is a diftin£t queltion ; and the
effects defigned by it, as related by Mofes,
render it a queliion, which regards only the
providence and power of God, which tliofe
mull have leave to meafure by their own
Reafon, who have fo little Reafon as not to
fee the abfurdity of it(10). However, I can¬
not but obferve, that fome of the lateft dis¬
coveries in meteorology may ferve to fliew,
that hitherto we have been incompetent to
judge even of the phylical caufes* that may
have operated : and fome of thefe, particu¬
larly the convertibility of water into air n, or
air into water, may have had a very material
effect, and fhould teach us to be cautious
how we apply our feeble calculations, to
meafure and determine any reputed acSls of
Providence.

The ninth verfe of the firii chapter of
Geneiis tells us, that fuch was once the liate
of the globe, that, in order that the dry land
fliould appear, all the waters under the hea¬
ven required to be gathered together into

11 See M, de Lucs Experiments with the Hygrometer.

U 4

one

296 SERMON VI.

one place : and why might not a mere re¬
vocation of this decree reftore things to their
priliine Rate, when no dry land was vifible ?
The cataftrophe of the deluge, for what we
know, may be fully fufficient to account for
all thofe furprifing circumftances of foffil
bodies found in places where no correfpond-
ent animals or vegetables now exift (”) ; for
belides other conje&ures, that have been
formed, the occafion of the deluge, as re-
prefented by Mofes, may poffibly have been
fufficient to vindicate the idea, that the in¬
clination of the axis of the' globe underwent
a change at that time 0 ; or if not then, per¬
haps before, or perhaps fince ; we know no¬
thing certain. That elephants once exiited
in Siberia, and crocodiles in our own coun¬
try, proves nothing contradictory to the Mo-
faic records, which give intimation of at
leaft two very important changes and revo¬
lutions ; namely, the curfe of the earth, and
the deluge. As far as a change of climate
only is luppofed to be intimated, the vera¬
city of Mofes on this head is not more rea-
ionably to be queftioned, than the veracity

See Howard's Scripture Hijlory.

SERMON VI.

”97

of Juvenal, Horace, Diodorus, Strabo, Ovid,
Polybius, and Varro ; all of whom, as is
well known, have actually defcribed things
quite different from what we now experi¬
ence in the places they mention. The two
former fpeak of fuch fevere winters at Rome
as are never heard of now. Many paffages
of Plorace fuppofe the llreets of Rome full
of fnow and ice ; but in our days the Tyber
no more freezes at Rome, than the Nile at
Cairo. However, of this we may be affured,
that philofophy can fupply no actual proof
againlt the probability of fuch a catattrophe
as theMofaic deluge; while we have this con-
ftantly to allege in fupport of it, that the con¬
tinental parts of our globe all bear teftimony
to a fubmerfion of them at one time or
other : that naturalifts of the higheft emi¬
nence, in contradiction to many falfe proofs
that have been brought forward of the high
antiquity of our prefent continents, have af¬
fured us, that their obfervations have led to
an entirely different condufion ; and that as
far as the fuperficial parts of the earth can
be held to fupply proper chronometers, they
all tend to prove the /mail antiquity of our

prefent

2()S

SERMON VL

prelent continents15: that no one monument
of human art, or even human exiftence,
clearly prior to thofe times, has been yet
difcovered : no medals, no infcriptions, no
utenfils, no ornaments of man have been
found, indicative of a greater antiquity than
that affigned by Mofesq : while the fa<$i itfelf
undoubtedly ftands corroborated by many
collateral leltimonies (I2). And this latter cir-
cumftance is certainly moft to our purpofe ;
for it is not the phy Ileal hi dory of the earth
we require to be inftrudted in, by the means
of Revelation ; but the hiftory of man, as a
moral and religious being.

The earth is folid and compact enough for
our ufe ; fertile enough ; abundant in all
things needful both for our fupport and our
comfort : yet it certainly does not appear fo
methodically arranged as to fufFer us to fup-
pole it to have been free from great revolu¬
tions and cataftrophes. Ufeful as it is, and
beautiful as it is, in its very irregulari¬
ties, we might furely be juftified in con-

p See Notes (2) and (11).

q Minute PL’itofopfrer, Dial. vi< 287,

eluding.

SERMON VI.

299

eluding, that an irregular arrangement of
the original depofitions of the chaos, might
from the very firft have been more fitted to
our wants and purpofes, than one more uni¬
form. If the ftrata had continued in what
was apparently their firft form, in concen¬
tric coats, we fliould have known perhaps
only the outermoft, or in fome excavations
a fmall number more. What a want of va¬
riety in regard to foils, and confecjuently
perhaps to the growth and production of
plants, might this have occafioned ! How
many mineral fubftances, both of ufe and
ornament, might have for ever remained
concealed in the bowels of the earth ! and,
inftead of the richly variegated face of nature,
which now ferves to delight the eye, and ex¬
hilarate the heart, oner uniform plain would
have extended through all countries, inter¬
rupted only by the ftill more uniform feenerv
of the watery element.

1 »

r See Miltons Paradife Loft, b. ix. 115. Theodoretus
lolxc, Xoy. /S'. Nichols s Conferences, vol. i. 35, 36. Ray on the
Creation, 34, See. Derhams Pbyftco- T heology, b. iii. ch. 4. Suit-
<vans View of Nature, vol. i. 105. Liebknecht's Element a Geo¬
graphies General, (de Montium ufu.J JValleriust §. xxviii.

What

300

SERMON VI.

What particular revolutions may have oc-
calioned the many dillocations of ftrata,
which now ferve to vary the face of the
globe, and to which we owe the abrupt
precipice, the towering Alps, the cataract
and volcano, and other bold features of na¬
ture, it is vain to enquire. Fire may have
done much, and water more ; but of the
ravages of water we have a fuccind: ac¬
count; not written by a naturalift; not com-
pofed from a furvey and examination of the
feveral parts of the globe ; not framed to
lupport an hypothecs ; but limply related as
an ad: of God, to punifh a wicked and difo-

bedient race. The fecondary caufes put in

motion for this purpofe were fuch as we
might exped would produce great altera¬
tions in the face of the globe. “ The foun-
“ tains of the great deep were broken up,
“ and the windows of heaven opened ; and
“ there was a continuance of rain on the
“ earth for forty days and forty nights.”
The effeds of thefe events mull, we may well
fuppofe, have been both awful and extenlive;
even perhaps to the adual deftrudion and
fubmerfion of the then fublilting continents;
which is the theory of one celebrated Natu¬
ralift

SERMON VI.

301

ralift of the age s, founded on very extenfive
obfervations, and fupported by our own ver-
fion of the Scriptural account of the curie,
“ Behold I will deftroy man, with the earth;”
a reading, which the Septuagint and Vulgate
countenance1. At all events, we may con¬
clude it to have been a molt ftupendous re¬
volution ; and fuch as not only may ferve us
moll fitly to account for fome of the moll
ftriking phenomena and irregularities ob-
fervable in the great mafs of the globe ; but
without which it feems in many inftances
impofiible to account for fome of the moll

obvious appearances.

Even as a queftion in philofopliy, if we
reject the Mofaic account, we mull fubfti-
tute another ; and this diftindlion between
us will ftill fubfift, that ive , who have ocular
demonftration of the fadt, namely, of the
univerfal fubmerfion of our continents, at
one time or other, cannot by any hypothefis
explain it to the general fatisfaftion of the
world : while Mofes has both recorded and

s De Luc. See Notes (3) and (11).

1 See Foxtons Remarks on Burnet's Arclceologia, at the end of
his Dottrlna Antiqua de Origin . Rerum , p. 162. Note; and Ja~
miefon on the Ufe of Sacred Hi/lory, vol. i. 241,

ex-

02 S E R M 0 N VI.

explained a fadt, of which he could not, in
the nature of things, when he wrote, have
had any fenfible or experimental knowledge;
but which, betides all other teftimonies, the
face of the whole globe, and the obferva-
tions of naturalifts, have been fince found*
in a in oft furprifing manner, to corroborate
and confirm (I3).

NOTES

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

€4

((

Page 277. note (1).

And this fiirely is the mojl reafonahle reply that can he
made.] The Jews, whofe Memorial I had occafion to
notice in my third Difcourfe, give the following reafon
for rejecting the Mofaic records, as J'acred documents.
La religion qu’on nous a enfeignee etoit toute rem-
plie de principes myftiques. L’hiftoire du monde pri-
mitif etoit myfterieufe, obfcure, incoherente; les e-
“ venemens etranges, et reffemblans d peu, jufques dans
ie les plus petites nuances, aux phetiomenes du monde
“ ou nous vivonSjCyx’Ws nous paroiflent prefque incroya-
“bles.” It is true, befides the books of Moles, they
confefs, that they had been taught to regard the Tal¬
mud of equal authority; and therefore they might with
fome reafon be fufpicious of this part of their educa¬
tion : but to objeCt to any account of the origin of
things, merely becaufe of its dif agreement with prefent
appearances , is no lefs than abfurd ; though it may leeni
to have the countenance of fo eminent a philofopher as
Mr. Hume. For it is certainly in the higheft degree
unphilofophical \ to make experience the foie tell either
of pali or future events : the utmoft we can learn from
experience is, the ufual courfe of nature ; but how or
when fuch became the ufual courfe of nature, mud; for
ever baffle our refearches : thefe things are for ever
confounded. Nature will admit the oblerver and expe-
rimentalift enough into her fecrets, to enable them to
cooperate with her in converting to the ufe of man the
faired; of her productions, and to calculate upon the
probable refult of many curious operations : but when
lhe herfelf was fet to work, and how die became em¬
powered to do what die has done and ftill does, lhe cannot

inform

3°4

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

inform us, if flie would. Nor can fhe in any manner aflure
us how long the prefent courfe and chain of operations
may continue. The creation muft have been miraculous :
the feed muft have exifted before the tree, or the tree
before the feed ; the hen before the egg, or the egg
before the hen ; and each of thefe, with a view to pre¬
fent experience, is a miracle. And in the fabric of the
very body of the earth, let us afcend as high as we
pleafe; let us bring its fubftance from the fun or a co¬
met ; let us fet attra&ion, and gravity, fermentation,
depofition, cryftallization, and what we will to work, in
order to its arrangement, this is really nothing to the pur-
pole ; things could not be as they are now, when thefe
lirft began to operate: and that they have eternally ope¬
rated is not merely difficult to prove, but is a propofi-
tion, which abfolutely refills all proof.

Epicurus, had he but admitted into his fyftem a Pro¬
vidence, and final caufes, might have defended his ato¬
mical combinations againft the philofopher for ever,
upon his own plea, of things being otherwife in the
world now, than when it was produced : for though
nothing could be more abfurd, than to fancy that a jum¬
ble of unintelligent atoms could be more capable at one
time of producing things than at another ; yet cer¬
tainly, had God chofen Jo to form the world, and all
things in it, it would be no argument againft fuch a
cofmogony, that fince that time things have been
otherwife propagated and continued. Such a jumble
of atoms might, under the providential direction of
God, have formed th ejlrfi man $ whereas the firjl man
could not have been formed, as the fpecies has been
fince propagated. In all theories of the world, there¬
fore, there is certainly a point where we mujl flop, and
where miracles muft be reforted to ; but it requires no
fmall degree of prudence to know exactly where to
flop. e£ If we would give credit,5’ fays the learned Dr.
Niemuentyt , in the Preface to his Religious Philofopher ,
Ci to thole who pretend to tell us fuch things, as how
“ God made the world, put all things together, pro-
duced and continued motion, & c. See. we muft needs
e6 conceive, that there was no more wifdom requifite
c‘ to bring this glorious frame of the world into fuch a
Ci beautiful order as we fee it, and to continue it in the

“ fame.

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

3oj

u fame, than what the authors of fuch books were
“ matters of.” This is certainly moft true ; and yet,
how many ftill continue forward and eager to difclofe
to us, not only what the prefent appearances of the
earth may be laid to indicate, and by what principles
of motion (lie feems to be governed ; but whence (lie
came, and exadlly how every thing came to be as it is !
The queftion, as it concerns the facred books, is merely,
whether philofophers Can difcover any thing in the
works of God, that pofitively contradi&s the Mofaic
hi (tory. That the Mofaic hi dory Ihould contradidf
their preconceived notions of things, is not to be won¬
dered at ; efpecially when they are unreafonable enough
to expedt, that it fhould be at all conformable to the
prefent courfe of things.

In judging of the Mofaic cofmogony, we do not
want philofophers to tell us, whether God could make
the world in fix days, or according to the order de-
fcribed by Mofes ; whether he could make man of the
dud; of the ground, and infufe into him the breath of
life: we are entirely alfured of the poffibility of thefe
things ; and what is more, of the abfolute neceflity of
fome fuch commencement of things. And therefore
we do not even require philofophers to tell us, whether
a more fit method could have been devifed ; it is a
point they never can refolve. “ God has left us no
anfwer to thole that alk, why he did not make the
“ world in a day, or why not fooner; nor why he made
“ fo many creatures, that feem to be of no ufe; and a
thoufand other quefiions. God has refer ved fuch
iC kind of objedlions to the anfwer of his own love-
“ reignty.” Wolfley on Atheifm.

It has been very well faid by one author, that, in order
to know God thoroughly, we Ihould be Gods ourfelves ;
and the fame may be faid, in many refpe&s, of his
ways and his works. We muft not be too inquifitive
into the quomodo of things. How caufes now operate,
we may be permitted to inveftigate; but how the
cause of causes fhall operate, let us prefume not
to determine. « A quoi d'abord,” lays M. de Luc, in
his Reply io the Jews' Memorial , cc voudriez-vous pou-
voir comparer le monde primitif, c’eft-&-dire fans
iS doute, le commencement des chofes ohfervables , pour que

x * “ la

3°6‘

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

ee la Raifon humaine, qu’ici vous etabliffez juge, put le
“ com prendre, et decider, s’il a du etre ou ne pas etre a
6i la maniere dccrite par Moi'fe ? II eft itnpoftible que
“ vous trouviez aucun objet de comparailon, ni dans
“ l’obfervation ou V experience, ni dans aucun principe
ee d priori ; pretendre le trouver, e’eft n’avoir pas refle-
6( chi fur la nature de la chofe, qui tient a Facte de
“ creer .” This is ftrongly put, but does not at all ex¬
ceed the truth. The mode of creation we can have no
means of afeertaining ; and it is absolutely vain to fpe-
culate beyond what now appears to be the courj'e of
things. “ Homo naturce minijlcr , et inter pres , tantum
ce facit et intelligit, quantum de naturae ordine, re, vel
<( mente, obfervaverit : nec amplius feit, aut poteft.”
Nov. Org. lib. i. aph. i. which an eminent modern geo-
logift renders, tc Man is but the minifter and interpreter
ec of nature, and can neither extend his power nor his
cc knowledge a hair s breadth beyond his experience and
ce obfervation of the prefent order of things. ” Jdlayf air's
Illujlration of the Hut Ionian Theory, p. iH.

Whether the world was made according to the fame
rules and methods, it is impoffible for us to know ;
though the world is now preferved by mechanical laws,
(and yet not that univerfally, fee Profej/or Jenkin , vol.
ii. ch. 9.) there is no real'on to fuppofe it to have
been fo made at firft. (( The origin of the univerfe/>
fays the fame learned writer, u was by the immediate
“ hand of God, before the appointment of the feveral
<£ laws, which afterwards were to take place: and we
<e might as well endeavour to reduce the working of
“ miracles to the {landing laws of nature, as the crea-
“ tion of the world. For certainly, of all miracles,
C( the creation of the world muft be the greateft ; not
6( only as it fignifies the produ&ion of matter and mo-
<( tion out of nothing, but as it was the putting things
cc into fuch order, as to make them capable of the laws
<c of motion ordained for them.” “ On ne me perfua-
“ dera pas,” fays Wallerius, (I have only a tranilation
to refer to,) “ que le Tout-puiftfant fe loit fervi, dans
(c l’ouvrage de la creation, des loix que lui-meme a
ce diCtees a la nature.” De VOrigine du Monde, §. xix.

Mr. Hume, in his pofthumous works, as cited by
Dr. Darwin, in his Zoonomia, fed, xxxix. 4. 8. con¬
cludes.

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

307

eludes, that the world might have been generated ,
rather than created ; and the Doctor inclines to think,
that, “ if we may compare infinities, it would feem to re-
ii quire a greater infinity of power to caufe the caufes of
“ than to caufe the effects themfelves.” But

God, as Moles reprefents the cafe, in firft caufing the,
effects, caufed alfo the caufes of fucceeding effects:
man, and other animals, and the vegetables' of the
earth, were created by his fiat ; all perfect in their
kind, and with inherent powers of future propagation.

It is wifeft then to regard every thing as proceeding
now according to the laws of God ; but not to make
fuch rules and principles, and modes of aCtion, (as too
many do,) laws of invincible neceffity to God himfelf.
The planets certainly appear to perform their revolu¬
tions round the fun by the niceft combination of two
mechanical forces ; but how impoffible is it for us ever
to affign the phyfical caufes, which enable them to de~
feribe their feveral orbits ! If we (hall have truly dif-
covered the principle of attra&ion, the projeCtile force
will for ever elude our refearches : and perhaps, after
all, there is no other attraction or projectile whatsoever
concerned, than the will of God. What the earth isy
we may with reafon enquire ; what it has been , none
can certainly tell us better than Moles ; (his infpira-
tion out of the queftion.) Where it is, we may with
reafon alfo endeavour to difeover ; but whence it came,
none can ever inform us but God himfelf : and as this
information feems to be withheld, in the only records
of the creation accounted facred, we may well regard
it as a matter of no poflible concern to us, while we
have faith in the leading doCtrine of the whole; name¬
ly, that “in the beginning God created the heavens
“ and the earth.” (C For my part,” fays the cele¬
brated M. Huygens, in the conclufion of his KOSMO-
0EI2PO2, or Conjectures concerning the Vlanetary Worlds y
(C I fhall be very well contented, and fhall count I have
“ done a great matter, if I can but come to any know-
C( ledge of the nature of things as they now are ; never
“ troubling my head about their beginning, or how
“ they were made ; knowing that to be out of the
(C reach of human knowledge, or even conjecture.”

It is not to evade the force of any philofophical theo-

x % ries

3oS NOTES TO SERMON VI.

ties then, that the Theologian inftfts upon the Mofaic
cofmogony being a miraculous relation of things : it is
truly unphilofophical to fuppofe it would have been
more credible, had it not been fo : it is its peculiar
diftinclion, and exa&ly ferves to place it on a different
footing from all the world-making fyftems of other na¬
tions ; though Mr. Paine is pleafed to infill upon it,
that they are all alike: and Dr.Toulmin (whofe works
I cite merely becaufe I know they have been publiffed ,
for more unphilofophical works I never read,) affirms,
that no account of the creation carries with it more
the face of probability, than the Gentoo Fable of
Burmha . The Gentoo Fable of Burmha is certainly
miraculous enough ; but the miracles are not miracles
operated by God towards the production of the viable
things of this earth, but the miracles of Burmha him-
l'elf, and his family; which have no relation whatever
to the vifible order of things. (See an ingenious and
lively Anfwer to this ftrange writer, by the Rev. Ralph
Sneyd , 17 83.) Mofes relates the miracle of the crea¬
tion in a mere liiftory of the effedls produced by the
fiat of God : other cofmogonilis, even when they refer
thefe effects to the will of God, will perfift in telling
us, not what Tupernatural, but what natural caufes ope¬
rated to produce thefe effe£ls ; whereas Mofes is philo-
fophical enough to refer the firft effects folely to the
caufe of caufes ; thofe effects themfelves indeed includ¬
ing the caufes of fubfequent effects and operations. I
call this philofophical, becaufe I fee no other poffible
way of accounting for the prefent (late of things : for
even had the world been formed according to f'uch laws
of motion as are now neceffary for its prefervation ;
had the feveral llrata and mineral beds been produced
according to fuch proceflfes as we fliould fuppofe capa¬
ble of fimilar effects now ; yet, not only the animals of
the earth, but the whole tribe of vegetables muft have
been miraculoufly brought into exillence. No cryf-
tallizations, no fermentations, no elementary combina¬
tions whatloever will now, I apprehend, be fuppofed
capable ot having produced a fingle blade of grafs.
The advancement of knowledge, which has determined
us to reject all ideas of fpontaneous or equivocal gene¬
ration, muft particularly ferve to prove to us the necef-

fity

NOTES TO SERMON VL

fity of a miraculous interposition in the firft indance, in
regard not only to animals, but to vegetables ; no com¬
binations of matter that vve know of, or laws of motion ,
being adequate to produce either a perfect plant with¬
out feed, or a perfect feed without the parent plant.

I Should not have dwelt fo long upon this, but that
among thofe who have been eager to treat the cofmo-
gony of Mofes, as a mythologueor allegory, lome have
apprehended that the whole is to be considered as an
Oriental hyperbole, which, not making any diftindtion
between the mediate and Immediate adts of God, refers
every thing to the Deity by a mere figure of fpeech .
This is exprefsly alleged by the Jews of Berlin, as one
reafon for their incredulity : but the cafe is not appli¬
cable, where the queftion relates to the creation of the
world. Every thing may be faid to be immediately
the add of God, by Inch a figure of fpeech, while the
adt of creation and miracles muft alone be really 4'uch,
without any figure of fpeech. Thus when God is faid
to have <c planted a garden eaftward in Eden,” this may
feem, from the mere ufe of the term (< planted,” to be
only a figure of fpeech : but when it is added, that out
of the ground the Lord God made every tree to grow
that is pleafant to the fight and good for food, this
may realonably be regarded as no figure of fpeech, or
Oriental hyperbole ; for how could trees grow at the
firft beginning of things but by the immediate agency
and appointment of God? And I think the nth vsrle
of the i ft chapter of Genefis fufficient anfwer to every
fuch objection ; for I know not how grafs could ever
have grown, (to Speak philofophically), or herb, or
fruit-tree, had not God originally caufed them to lpring
out of the ground, all of them in a condition to yield
feed, and fruit, (whofe feed is in itfelf,) for the future
fupply and maintenance of man and beaft.

Page 278. note (2).

It is thus that one very eminent naturalijl , and very pious
Chrijlian , &c.] Though in the preceding note I have
expreffed myfelf generally unfriendly to all fuch fy Items
and theories as carry us back to the firft commence¬
ment of things, it being my fettled opinion that no ob-
lervations whatfoever will ever inform us of the exadt

x 3 truth

3io NOTES TO SERMON VI.

truth of matters ; and that even if this globe of earth
*10 as formed by fuch phyfico-mechanical laws, as ope¬
rate at prefent in its prefervation, yet that they muft
have operated at the aera of the creation, under luch
extremely different circum fiances, as to baffle all our
enquiries ; yet I am by no means defirous of paffing
over fuch teftimonies, either for or* againfl revelation,
as the body of the earth maybe thought by any to
fupply. My object is only to difcover what the refult
feems to be, of the application of this tefl : and as
modern opinions are what I have chiefly propofed to
examine, through the whole courfe of thele Lectures,
M. de Luc’s theory may reafonably take the lead,
among thofe which have been recently advanced in
corroboration of the Mofaic cofmogony ; for this ve¬
nerable and very eminent naturalift is perfuaded, that
the holy Scriptures are entirely in correfpondence
with geological phenomena. He looks upon the de¬
luge, and the chronology of that event, to be” capable
of pofitive proof; and though his fpeculations afcend far
beyond that period, yet as the deluge was the fulfil¬
ment of a prophecy, he juflly regards the confirmation
of this event to be a direct proof of the divine authority
*of the Scriptures, and to be fufficient to eflablifh the
divjne miffion of the author of the Pentateuch.

His idea is, that at the deluge the ancient continents
funk, and the original bed of the fea became dry, form¬
ing the continents which we now inhabit; the fummits
of our higheft mountains having been ifiands in the anci¬
ent fea. As thefe new continents mufl immediately have
become fubje£t to a new fet of operations, which have
continued from that time, and the effects of which are
therefore both vifible and meafurable, he apprehends,
that we have in thefe effects decifive chronometers ;
and as many of them are independent of each other,
and agree only in the epoch of their commencement,
they afford a body of evidence of irrefiftible force. Of
the operations that preceded the deluge according to
this celebrated naturalift, the following is a fhort ab-
ftra<ft. He agrees with his cotemporaries, MM. de la
Metherie, de Sauffure, Dolomieu, Pini, &c. that all the
fubftances that form the mafs of our continents, the
bafon of the fea, &c. including granite , muft at fome
* ' diftant

NOTES TO SERMON VI,

31T

didant epocha have been fufpended in a liquid which
covered the globe, whence they were at fucceffive
periods chemically precipitated. But he is lingular in
his opinion of the firil: determining caufe or indifpenfa-
ble preliminary of fuch precipitations : he refers it, as I*
have hated in my Difcourfe, to the introdudion of light
among the other elements, which by inducing, ac¬
cording to its now known phyiical properties, liquidity ,
gave room for the eledrive attractions, and all other
phylico-mechanical operations. He thinks our conti¬
nents were built up llratum upon llratum, at the bot¬
tom of the fea ; then reduced to ruins, and now ele¬
vated above the prelent fea, by the linking of former
continents; the epoch of which event he judges, from
very extenlive obfervations, not to be more remote
than the deluge. Coal Jlrata , remains of terredrial
animals, bones of quadrupeds, and impreffions of frelh-
water fifh, he thinks belonged to the ihands of the pri¬
mitive^ world, which* funk, and above which the lea
afterwards produced frelh ftrata or beds, before its re¬
treat at the deluge. Of the accompanying changes of
the atmofphere and of climates, I lhall have occalion to
fpeak elfewhere. . r

This is the fummary of M. de Euc’s theory, as far as
it applies generally to the fubjed of this difcourfe.
M. de Luc is too well known' as an obferver, and as a
very curious experimental ill, to make it necelfary to
Hate, that he has been particularly careful and induftri-
ous to colled; fads to fubllantiate his theory ; many of
which are certainly exceedingly curious and important.
See his Hijlory of the Earth and of Man , addreffed to
her Majefty, his Letters to M, de la Methe.rie in the
Journal de Phyfique, and his Geological Letters in the
2d and following vols. of the Britifb Critic.

I have thought it right to give this ftatement of M.
de Luc’s principles at length, becaufe he has very re¬
cently had occalion to recal the attention of the public
to his arguments upon this head; and as the whole that
relates to the age of our continents, according to this
theory, depends upon ohfervation , it is but reafona-
ble that it Ihould be made known, not only to natu-
ralifts, but to theologians. Belides, whatever becomes
of the general queftion, and how much foever it may

x 4 be

3**

NOTES TO SERMON VI,

be oppofed, I confefs I find in this theory fome gene¬
ral principles laid down, which feem highly credible,
and pf great importance : as firft, in regard to the de¬
rivation of our Jirata from chemical precipitations;
1 hough the origin of granite , and confequently its
chemical precipitation from a liquid, is flill a matter of
difpute, and will perhaps for ever be fo ; yet that many
of our Jirata have been fo precipitated, feems very pro¬
bable from their contents. How fhall we ever account
other wife for a fucceffion of dijlind ftrata ? What can
ever have determined the fea to depofit at one time
only calcareous, at another only aluminous, at another
only arenaceous matter ? I cannot help agreeing with
M. de Luc, that the change from one Ipeciesof ftratum
to another indicates a change of caufe ; and therefore,
that the mafs of our continents does feem to be the pro¬
duct of fucceffive operations during which the producing
caufes have undergone fucceffive changes. This is a
thing very much overlooked, and for which no other
theory, that I know of, has duly provided.

Now if fuch has been the origin of our principal
ffi ata, I fhall venture to pronounce, that no argument
in regard to time can be drawn from the effects of fuch
operations. And if it pleafed God to form the globe
by the intervention of phyfical caufes, I know none fo
likely to have been employed, as fire, and chemical at¬
tractions ; for however flow and gradual fome of the
changes in the body of the earth may have been fince
it became an habitable globe, yet when it was to become
fuch by the determination of God’s pleafure, it would
be ablurd to fuppofe that its arrangement would be left
to depend on any proceffies, that might unnecejfarily re¬
tard the execution of fuch a decree of the Almighty.
Though time is really nothing to an infinite and eternal
Being, and the courfe of things may ferve to ffiew, that a
gradual and progreffive operation of caufes and fucceffive
production of effects, are quite confident with the provi-
dential government of the world; yet I cannot bring
inylelt to believe, that this or any other planet was
i objected to any protruded courfe of operations, when it
was hrk ordained to become habitable. The fix days

°*i u CS^?r ar> t0 nie ^llcornParably more philofophi-
cal than Lulfon s correfpondent epochs of nature : ac-

- cordinor

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

3T3

cording to which the earth was for 37,20 6 years not
only uninhabitable, but abfolutely too hot to touch :
then inhabited for many thoufand years by creatures
capable of living in boiling water : in about 6o,cco
years, and not before, fitted to fuftain terreftrial ani¬
mals, when elephants and rhinocerofes were for 15,000
years the lords of this lower creation : and man, for
whom alone it now feems to have been created, could
not enter till after a period of full 75,000 years : and in
93,000 years, or thereabouts, the race is to be frozen
out of the world again ; for as it began with being
too hot to touch, it will then be too cold to inhabit.
Such calculations are furely a burlefque upon philofo-
phy, and almoft impious, as applied to God. The
world may have been reduced to order, certainly, by
fome courfe of phyfico-mechanical operations ; but if
fo, I think certainly by the quickeft and mod adtive
poffible. In his Natural Hi/lory , M. BufFon makes a
reflection on the Vrotogeea of Leibnitz,, which I cannot
help thinking quite as applicable to his own epoch's of
nature. “ The grand defect of this theory,” fays he,
“ is, that it is not applicable to the prefen t ftate of the
“ earth : it is the pajl , which it explains 5 and this paft
“ is fo far back, and has left fo few remains, that we
<c may fay what we pleafe of it, and the probability
(C will be in proportion as a man has talents to eluci-
u date what he aflerts. Befides, it offends againft the
“ unity of creation ; for if it was as he fuppofes, it mull
“ neceflarily be admitted, that fhell-fifh, and other in-
ic habitants of the fea, exifled long before man, and all
£< other terreftrial animals. Now, independent of Holy
cc Writ, is it not reafonable to think, that all animals anti
“ vegetables are nearly as ancient as each other?” Now
nothing could take place upon fo great a fcale fo fud-
denly perhaps as chemical precipitations; nothing could
be more active or penetrating than fire; either as the
caufe of liquidity, as a lifting force, or poffibly for the
purpofes of confolidation. To the fadt of rnoft of our
mineral ftrata having been formed by chemical preci¬
pitations, we have then the confent of many eminent
modern obfervers ; and we find them agreeing in ano¬
ther principle, namely, that no fuch precipitations take
place now in the fea, nor any operations, which bear

the

3*4

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

the flighted analogy to thofe productions of mineral
fubftances in krata, which took place formerly in our
globe. Depofiiions the fea dill makes ; but is not fub-
je6h to chemical precipitations. The Huttoman theory,
it is well known, differs very much from this, not only
in regard to the origin of the granitic and other mine¬
ral beds, but particularly in refpe6t to fuch an inter¬
rupted courfe of operations ; its chiefeft principle being,
that Jimilar Jirata are flill and for ever forming at the
bottom of the fea, and confolidating there, by means
of a central or fubterraneous heat.

I ffiall not pretend to decide between thefe two the¬
ories : of the operation of caufes, which have long fines
ceafed to operate , we can certainly judge but very im¬
perfectly ; nor yet of what is palling at the bottom of the
fea y or of the effects of fubterraneous heat ; of which,
notwith {landing the great progrefs lately made in fuch
enquiries, it is certainly and confeffedly very difficult
to determine any thing certain. I ffiould incline how¬
ever to think it much more probable, that the earth
owes its firft arrangement either to caufes not now ope¬
rating, or to an extraordinary, perhaps a miraculous
modification of exifting caufes, the action of which
ceafed, or was fufpended, when the purpofes were ful¬
filled, for which they were defigned; fuch as the forma¬
tion and confolidation of the feveral krata; and, I
fhould be difpofed to think, even their elevation and
di (location.

In volcanic countries, and in fome feas, very violent
and very extenfive effects have been known to have
been produced fuddenly, or within a very ffiort fpace
of time ; but the general features of the globe remain
much as they were : and if the Huttonian fykem be
true, I think it muk kill be granted, that many natural
operations are for the prefent at leak fufpended, and
will be fo, probably, while the earth continues habita¬
ble. Let the rivers of the globe convey what they
will to the fea, and volcanos eje£t what they will from
the body of the earth, in a few places, we are fenfible
now of no effects correfpondent to thofe which muft
have originally raifed the Alps, and other granitic
mountains ; and enabled them, according to the Hut¬
tonian fyftem, to break through or feparate the general

mafs

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

roafs of fuperincumbent ftrata. I do not mean to deny,
that they may have been elevated, as the Huttonian
fyftem ftates ; but let their elevation have been owing
to whatever natural caufe theorifts may choofe to al-
fign, I think the fufpenfion of the action of fuch caufes
is proof enough of fome efpecial interpofition on the
part of Providence ; and that the flate of the globe
does in fadt conceal from us many fecrets, as well as to
what is paft, as to what is to come.

It is a favourite maxim, which philofophers have
adopted from Seneca, and Profeffor Playfair makes it
the motto to his Illujirations of the Huttonian Theory ,
cc Nunc naturalem caufam quasrimus et aftiduam, non
“ raram et fortuitam.” But furely the lifting forces,
which this theory fuppofes to have operated in the ele¬
vation and protrufion of the granitic maiTes, as well as
the operations of fire neceifary upon this fyftem to their
production, muft be accounted rather among the rare
and fortuitous caufes, to which this globe is fubject ;
not lefs fo at leaft than the linkings and lubfidihgs, and
precipitations of M. de Luc’s theory.

Thefe two theories may be conftdered as the ex¬
tremes of modern geology, as far as the hiftory of the
earth may feem to be connected with the hiftory of
man. M. de Luc apprehends, that not only our pre-
fent continents are of fmall antiquity, not exceeding
the sera of the deluge, (from which period they fupply
us with certain chronometers,) but that every phyfical
operation on the globe may be traced back to the exact
rera of the creation, according to Mofes. Dr. Hutton
and his followers imagine the whole globe to be of
immenfe and unfathomable antiquity ; fubject to pe¬
riodical revolutions, which depend on caufes that ope¬
rate fo flowly, as entirely to preclude all calculations
upon the fubject. With regard then to both thefe
theories, I {hall endeavour to fix upon fuch parts as
feem to me to be of moft concern to the Theologian,
and then leave every reader to judge for himfelf.

Both theories are in agreement as to the original
formation of what are commonly called the ftratified
parts of the globe, at the bottom of the fea ; and of
their fubfequent fracture and diftocation by cataftrophes
of .great extent and inconceivable violence : for I fee
& but

NOTES TO SERMON VI,

516

but little difference, in point of force and violence, be¬
tween the fudden finking of immenfe continents, and
the protrufion of Alpine rocks, through an immenfe
body of fuperincumbent ftrata; even though this Should
not be very fudden. If we can find our way back to
'any fuch revolution of the earth , I think we need enquire
no further ; any fuch revolution I conceive to be, if
not phvfically miraculous, yet morally fo ; and to form
a moft important epoch in the hiftory of man. Very
many things concur to carry us back to fuch a period ;
lor whether the Mofaic deluge was univerfal or not,
whether it is the fame, of which traces are to be
found, more or lefs disfigured, in every profane hifiory
or mythology, without exception, there can be no
poffible doubt, but that nearly at that very aera, or in¬
deed exa6tly fo, many things immediately connected
with the prefent population of the earth , feem to have
had their origin and commencement. M. de Luc’s
hypothefis in regard to the deluge (not to afcend higher
at prelent) is, that at that time ancient continents
funk, and that the prefent continental parts of the
globe were fuddenly abandoned by the fea 5 and to ufe
the expreffion of another mod eminent obferver, (M.
Dolomieu) delivered over to the dominion of man.
Such a revolution muft of courfe have fubje£led the
raifed Jtrata, as M. de Luc obferves, to a courfe of
fielh operations ; fuch as the growth and decay of ve¬
getables, the a£hon of rain, and frofis, and rivers, &c.
and thefe are all procefies and operations, the produ&s
and effects of which, he contends, are capable of mea¬
surement. Such an antiquity alhgned to our continents
is certainly a very low one, comparatively with the ex¬
travagant calculations of many other theories, the Hut-
tonians in particular : and yet, fo far from being lingu¬
lar in aligning luch a date to our continents, the ob¬
servations of MM. Dolomieu and Sauffure, whofe
names carry with them a mod diftinguilhed authority,
brought them certainly to the fame conclufion, as to
the low antiquity of the prelent continents. See the

cZcde ^hyfl9ue> *79^ and the Voyage dans les Alpcs
of M. Sauffure, §.625. 6 1

M. Dolomieu’s expreffion is very Urong : “Jedefen-

drai une verite qui me paroit incontestable, et dont

“ il

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

3 v)

cc il me femble voir la preuve dans toutes les pages de
“ Phiftoire, et dans celles ou font confignes les faits
“ de la nature- — Que l’etat de nos continens nejl pas
t( ancicn : qu’il n’y a pas long-temps qu’ils ont ete don-
C( nes — a l’empire de Phomme.” Here then we have
a reference to faffs, which obfervation muft be left to
decide upon ; and upon which I fhall only offer thefe
remarks ; namely, that many cafes already adduced
feem to carry very great force with them : fee, as one
reference only, M. de Luc’s Vth Geological Letter, in
the 4th vol. of the Britijh Critic ; while the Huttonian
fyftem of a gradual detritus, fufficient to account for
not only the formation of all that is exifting, but for
the removal alfo of all that is miffing of our ftony ftra-
ta, appears, on many accounts, entirely inadmiffible :
for though we certainly cannot meafure, or in any
manner judge of, the quantity of materials, which in
the lapfe of innumerable ages the rivers of the earth
may have transmitted to the fea ; yet, as many rivers
empty themfelves into lakes , and have been in other
ways making depofitions, which admit of meafurement,
we have, I think, undoubted fadts to oppofe to the
fuppolition, that fuch caufes have been operating for an
indefinite time.

I know all thefe points have been repeatedly can-*
vailed and examined ; but not by any means to the re¬
moval of all difficulties upon the fubjedt. I think this
particular circumfiance of lakes, which M, de Luc. fo
much infills on, is an invincible obllacle in the way of
the Huttonian fyftem ; and Profeffor Playfair is obliged
himfelf, in this inftance, to have recourfe to hypothe¬
cs, to remove the difficulty, though contrary to his
own principles. See his Illujlrations , p. 365. At p. 403,
he oppofes to M. de Sauft'ure’s notion of a debacle, the
circumftanees of the longitudinal valley on the eaft of
Mont Blanc ; which, as he obferves, has its opening in
the middle : and he would infer, that it not only could
not have been fo formed by a debacle, but muft have been
produced by the running of the two ftreams from the
Col de Segue and Col de Ferret. But the ftream from
the Col de Segne pafles through the Lac de Combal ,
which would lurely not have exifted till this time, had

that

3** NOTES TO SERMON Vf.

that fit earn been the vehicle of fuch a detritus as muft:
have been neceffary to the formation of the valley.

As to the circulation of habitable worlds, by the means
of continual decay and renovation, it feems to imply,
(fo u ft ful and lo beautiful is the prefent variegated face
of nature,) that beiore the earth could ever have af-
fumed a ftate entirely fuitable and defirable for man’s
habitation, one perfebt world at Jeaff muft have been
del troy ed and worn to pieces ; or its inhabitants muft
have lived without the advantages of any loofe mate¬
rials ; and this for ages and for ages. Compare febtions
1 14* 1 lb. 117. 126. of Profeffor Playfair's Illuf rations,
f v that this feems to be a confequence of the
jynem; decay, or wafting , being made the jlrjl proceffies
m the production of all our flrata .

It is furely better to fuppofe, that as many of the
ioole materials of the globe, as well as many of the
moit indurated, feem of indifpenfable utility to man *
whatever phyfical operations may have taken place in
the firft production of either, were by the fpecial pro¬
vidence of God accelerated, by lome violent cataftro-
phes, external or internal, or both combined ; or by
luch proceffies as precipitation, (for even our lands have
been lufpe&ed, and I think with reafon, of beino- che¬
mically produced; fee both De Luc and Saufjure ; and
our pebbles of having been formed originally in no-
dules, and not to be owing entirely to attrition ;) fee
Vouglas on the Antiquity of the Earth, 49. Upon the
iulpenfion of fuch operations, nature poffibly began or
re umed her courfe of gradual and progreffive chancres*
which, as long as it fliall pleafe God to continue with-
out any general interruption, may ferve, and furely
muft ferve, to fupply fome chronometers connebted
with the hiftory of man. That this globe of earth has
continued exabtly m its prefent fituation and condition
or fuch a length of ages as may allow for the gradual
wearing away of our deepeft valleys, and tranfporta-
tion of the miffing materials, I cannot bring myfelf to
conceive; but ffiould much rather agree to any fyftem,

" ? y Ihe fudden finking and fubmerfion of former

continents, or violent elevation of pre-exifting ftrata,
or by debacles , which M, de Saufture has recourfe to,

may

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

3T9

may allow us to fuppofe, that the prefent diverjified
(late of the globe is coeval with the prefent race of
man. Revolutions, that feem to extend to the very
foundations of the earth, (and the vifible condition of
the globe feems only referable to fuch ,) whether our
valleys have been fuddenly depreffed by linkings, or
our mountains railed by extraordinary lifting forces ;
whether water fhall have undermined the pillars of the
earth, and let the ftrata drop ; or fubterraneous fires,
and elaftic fluids, driven up from below all the granitic
and porphyritic matters, which form our higheft ridges;
f uch events could fcarcely have been unaccompanied with
great changes in the condition of the inhabitants of the
earth : and the only queftion will be, whether fuch
revolutions may have had any moral ends; which thofe
who believe God to be the moral governor of the
world will not hefitate to admit, and thofe who do not
believe fo cannot contradict. Of one fuch revolution
the Mofaic writings give a fuccinCt account ; and per¬
haps of more than one ; for what may have been the
phyfical effeCts of the curfe of the earth , we know not :
but while the face of the globe bears teflimony to vio¬
lent and great cataflrophes, and every human theory
has recourfe to them ; cataflrophes in which the fea
feems undoubtedly to have changed its bed, either by
depreflion or elevation, and by which of courfe the in¬
habitants of the earth muft have been univerfally or
partially overwhelmed ; to find, in the oldeft book ex¬
tant, an account of fuch a revolution, in which the
very foundations of the earth were fliaken, and u all
(C the fountains of the great deep broken up,” is cer¬
tainly a very extraordinary circumftance, and one,
which, inflead of flanding in the way of theorifts, they
feem particularly to want. For though fome may be
difpoied to think the globe is in ruins, yet they are
habitable ruins ; and no doubt fuch cataflrophes enter as
much into the defign of God’s providence, as the molt
regular, flow, and gradual operations. Let the philo-
fopher then continue to invefiigate his u caufas natura-
“ les et affiduas,” the common and vifible courfe of
nature ; but let him not pretend to exclude the more
rare cataflrophes and revolutions, which not only have
been recorded, but which the hi ftory of man and the

face

320

NOTES TO SERMON VL

face of the globe feem evidently to confirm. I mud
not fay that ProfefTor Playfair excludes them, for he
exprefsly avows the contrary ; but in the length of
time, which he allows for the gradual excavation of
our valleys, and reduction of our mountains, he certain¬
ly afcends far beyond the aera of the deluge, which we
conceive to have been imquedionably one of thofe ge¬
neral cataflrophes and revolutions, the aera of which is
adignable. We may midake for ever in our enquiries
into the fpecific caufes of the fubmerfion of our conti¬
nents; but that what is dry land was once fea we can¬
not doubt ; and the hidory and chronology of the
world feem to carry us pretty regularly back to the
very aera of the Mofaic deluge.

What was the phyfical (late of the globe preceding
this mud be mere matter of conjecture ; though I have
already faid, that the notion of chemical precipitations
from a liquid feems alrnod neceffary to account for the
fiicceflion of didinCl ftrata ; and a fluid date of the
globe, at lead fuperficially, feems not only to be con¬
fident with the Scriptures, and to be demondrable from
the figure of the earth, but to be a point, in which
philofophers, ancient and modern, have been always
more agreed than in any thing elfe ; the Huttonians
being alrnod Angular, ir not entirely fo, in their denial
of it. Whether liquidity was introduced, as M. de
Luc has fuppofed, I prefume not to judge; but I am
veiy certain, that his notion is not more conjectural
than many that have met with a much better reception
in the world. Nor is it altogether original ; Wallerius
having exprefsly attributed to the introduction of light
the fird fluidity of the chaos, and the commencement
of the attractive influences. See his Origine du Monde ,
paragraph, xiv. xvi. xvii. Nor is the opinion of Leib¬
nitz far different ; “ Calor autem motufve intedinus ab
t igne ed, feu luce , id eft, tenuijjiino fpintu per?neante : '
ec atque ita ad motricem caufam perventum ed, unde
faera quoque hidoria cojmogeniae initium capit Pro to -
gaea. §§• ii. iii. iv. Profeffor Playfair might have
known, that the title of M. de Luc’s tenth Letter to
M. La Metherie, as well as the reafonings in it, were
no fuch novelties as he feems to think them. See his
Illujlrations , p. 479. Still I think all thefe fpecula-

X tions

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

tions are too conjectural to found any folid argument
on. Mofes does not tell us what fpecific phyfical ef¬
fects the firft introduction of light wrought upon the
chaos, except that, as before the earth was iS without
“ l°rm and void,” and u darknefs on the face of the
44 deepf this was the JlrJl ftep towards its change :
and philofophers may fpeculate upon it as they pleafe;
2t is enough to know they cannot difprove it. Mr.
Kii wan makes it the lource of all the volcanic opera¬
tions that have taken place : other theories have af-
figned to it different offices ; but very many agree in
conceiving it to have been either the caufe or imme¬
diate conlequence of the firft commotions that took place
in the chaotic mafs ; and this long before its chemical
or phyfical properties were at all underftood. Befides
thole theories whofe authors are well known, I have
many others now lying before me, which it is quite
unneceflary to cite : but there is not one of them,
which does not pretend to explain matters, with the
fulled confidence, that whether light was the firft caufe
or the firft confequence of motion in the chaos, it could
not have been otherwife than according to the exaCt
terms of their refpeCtive fyftems. M. de Luc and Wal-
lerius, though they make it the firft phyfical caufe of
fluidity or liquidity, very properly refer its production
to the immediate aCt of God ; and thus we are brought
back to a miracle, where, if not before, all enquiries
fliould certainly terminate.

Page 280. 710 te (3).

And till this is afeertained to a certainty — all our j pe¬
culations concerning pajl. tranfadlions mujl be in the great -
ejl degree vague and hypothetical .] It has been gene¬
rally thought, that the great attention which has lately
been paid to experimental philofophy in all its branches,
and particularly to chemiftry, muft enable us in time to
account for many geological phenomena, which have
hitherto been inexplicable ; and that we are every day
making advances towards a more correct knowledge of
the firu&ure of the globe, and the nature of the caufes
that have operated in the production of both the ft rati¬
fied and unftratified parts of the earth. It is undenia¬
ble, that many very important difeoveries have already

Y been

NOTES TO SERMON VI;

3*3

been made, and that many more may reafonably be ex¬
pected to follow, from the peculiar attention paid to
chemiftry ; but whatever help we may receive from it,
in judging of the prefent operation of natural caufes,
or in prognofticating future effects, I think it fcarcely
allows us to be very confident, as to any fatisfactory
folution of pajl operations. The very knowledge we
have obtained of many fubftances hitherto entirely mif-
underftood, and whole properties were formerly alto¬
gether mijiahen , fhould certainly make us extremely
cautious, not only of forming theories, but even of pro¬
nouncing any thing to be capable of being reduced to
a certainty, concerning the a6tion of any phyfical caufes
in time pad.

I have in the preceding note alluded to the opinion
of many modern philofophers, that mod of our firata
owe their origin to chemical precipitations : to mecha¬
nical precipitations from a liquid they mud at lead be
referred ; but this feems fcarcely fufticient in any man¬
ner to account for the order and dijlin Elion of the feve-
. raldrata; they would furely in all indances be more
mixed and confounded one with the other. And yet
not only are they now found to be clearly ieparable
into'drata of didin£t fubdances and materials; but often
the animal and vegetable reliquiae, imbedded in the fe-
veral drata, are found to be of didin6t fpecies, and to
vary confiderably. This led M. de Luc to conceive,
that whatever had been the determining caufe of fuch
precipitations, it had not only affe£led the mendruum
at the moment, but fo changed its nature, and the na¬
ture alfo of the fuperincumbent atmofphere, as to have
had an effect on animal life. And he thought he had
difcovered fuch caufes, in the periodical developement
and evolution of different eladic fluids, from the bottom
of the primitive ocean. It is not my bufinefs to verify
this or any other hypothefis ; but only to fuppofe it
poflible, in order to fhew how little we mud know of
fuch operations, when every experiment in chemidry
tends to prove, that the whole fyllem of chemical folu-
tions and precipitations mud depend on fuch curious
affinities, and fuch an infinite variety of poflible combi¬
nations of fubdances, as to elude all our enquiries. And
if chemical precipitations are rejedted, and the aqueous

origin

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

3%3

origin of things fet aftde, can we promife ourfelves
more certainty from the adoption of the Vulcanic fyf-
tem ? Can we pretend to decide more clearly any thing
concerning the poffible action and effects of fire in time
paft ? I think not. I really apprehend, that to judge
fairly of the matter, the determination of the fpecific
caufes, that may have operated in time paft in the body
of the earth, may be laid to become every day more
difficult, from the very difcovery of the many different
ways, in which the action of all phyfical caufes what-
foever may be modified and affected. For to refer at
once both to the Neptunian and Vulcanic theories,
wnat can we be faid to know, or what are we ever
likely to know, for certain , concerning the power of
water to become an univerfal folvent, in particular cir-
cum fiances, or of the a&ion and effects of fire, under
different circumftances of compreffion?

It is furely very juftifi ably faid by Mr. Kirwan, Irijh
Tranf. vol.v. “that water, in certain circumftances,
vc and with the addition of certain fubftances, may be
“ admitted as an univerfal folvent, fhould not be de-
“ nied, merely on account of our ignorance of thofe
“ circumftances and auxiliary fubftances.” And the
whole of the Huttonian theory may certainly be laid
to depend on the effects of fire operating under circum¬
ftances, which we have now no means of afeertaining.
Leibnitz depended for his fyftem on fome unknown ac¬
tion of fire. “ Is enim noftrorum furnorum efficaciam
“ immenfo gradus durationifque exceffu fuperans, quid
“ mirurn eft, ft tunc produxit, quae nunc homines imi-
ee tari non poffunt?” And in another place, in a very
animated ftyle, cc Unde prona fufpicio eft, quod exiguis
ce ipeciminibus nos ludimus, naturam magnis operibus
<c executam ; cui Montes funt pro alembicis, Vulcani
“ pro fumis.” Protogeea , §§. iii. x.

I do not mean to deny, that we may every day ap¬
proach nearer to the difcovery of the properties both
of fire and water, and of the circumftances by which
they may be feverally modified and affedfed; but yet
no difeoveries can ever aftiire us of the exaft circum¬
ftances, by which they may have been modified and af¬
fected in time paft. We may learn generally the ef¬
fects of preffure on fire, or by what circumftances the

y 3 foluble

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

ty r> t

o~ 4

ioluble properties of water may be increafecl or dimi-
niflied : but all thefe accidents and modifications mud
dill have been always lubjedt to every pofifible variation
of degree and intenfity, fo as not to admit of any calcu¬
lations fo fure, as to found any folid argument upon them.
T believe both fire and water have been the chief agents
in the feveral revolutions that have affected thole parts
of the globe, which we have it in our power to exa¬
mine ; but to what extent, or under what precife cir-
cumftances, I neither think it poffible to determine, nor
do I lee any great ufe in determining it, if we could.
W e are pretty generally agreed who made the world ;
why it was made we cannot doubt; how it was made
can never be a matter of any effential concern to man,
when fo many millions of the human race pafs their
lives, and fulfil the ends of their creation, without a
thought upon the fiubjedt, beyond what they conceive
to have been revealed to them in the fhort account of
the great Jewilh Legiflator ; and therefore Calvin de¬
duced an argument for the divinity of the Pentateuch
from the very omiifion of all fuch philo fophical fubtil-
ties. e( Artes reconditas aliunde diicat, qui volet. Hie
<c Spiritus Dei o nines Jimul Jine exceptlone docere voluitd*
In Gen. i.

As far as an examination into the vifible products
either of fire or water may enable us to apply thefe
chemical agents with more certainty and more effect,
in our laboratories, and in artificial procelfes of manifelf
utility, its importance muff be evident and undeniable:
but then this Ihould always be the acknowledged ob¬
ject of lueh enquiries ; for though we may find many
different ways of converting to our ufe the exifting
materials ot the globe, it can only be by combining
and modifying what does exifi: : we can never form a
new material, or multiply what is already provided for
us; and yet it would appear, that nothing lefs could
ierve to prove any theory; fynthefis being generally
the only certain proof of a perfect analyfis.

We may repeat even in this age, fo much and fo
.ju ftly extolled for its advancement in knowledge, what
was admirably laid long ago upon the fubjedt of Syjle-
matie P hyjics , by the entertaining author of the Specta¬
cle de la Nature: “ An experience of fix thoufand years

« is

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

k* is fully fufficient to inform us of what is acceffible or
44 interdicted to us. So long as man, in his refearches,
c* has buffed himfelf about what is fubmitted to his
44 government, his efforts were always rewarded with
4* uew difcoveries : but lo long as he prefumed to dive
4* into the intimate ftru&ure oi' the feveral parts of the
44 univerfe, which he is not appointed to put in motion,
his ideas were never any thing but an odd medley of
44 fancies and uncertainties. If he ftudies the meafures
44 of quantities and the laws of motion, not indeed to
44 fathom the heavens, or to weigh in a balance the
maffes ot the celeffial bodies, but to know the order
44 of his days ; it he obferves the relations, which the
afpeCts ot the heaven have with regard to his habita-
44 tion, and the progrefs ot the light through the me-
44 diums, which he offers thereto ; the helps which he
44 may find from the equilibrium ot liquors, or from
44 the weight and celerity of the bodies he is matter of,
44 or from all the other experiments that fall under his
44 eye, and efpecially under his hand ; in fliort, if he
44 applies experiments to the neccflaries of life, this will
Ci be a l’yftem of phyfics full of certainty, and produc-
44 tive of great advantages/’ See the Vlllth Dialogue
of the Spetiacle de la Nature ; where, allowance being
made for the language of the times in which it was
written, much that is very fentible and very applicable
to the fubject before us may be found. I cannot for¬
bear tranfcribing the concluding fentence : (I copy from
the Engl ith edition of 1739:) “ Our reafon always em-
44 ploys itfelf with luccels, when it ffrives to render ex-
44 peri mental truths uleful to us j when it prudently
iC makes ufe of God’s favours, and praifes him for the
fame : this is the whole fum of man’s knowledge.”

So. much would not be laid upon this fubjedt, but
that it is, and ever will be, perhaps, the cuftom of the
world, to compare all philofophical theories of the
earth with the Mofaic cofmogony ; from which two
evils feem to have arifen. Thole theories, which have
been framed without any regard to the revealed ac¬
count of things, have been thought to imply a philofo¬
phical contempt of the facred writings, as inconfiftent
with the vitible date of things ; while many theories,
which have been feverally invented to confirm every

y 3 article

325

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

article of the Bible cofmogony, having been found to
be inadmiffible and notorioufly unphilofophicai, have
made people fufpicious of all fuch explanations of mat¬
ters, to fuch a degree, as to make them apprehend that the
Bible contains nothing of real fa£t as to the firft origin
of things: whereas I fhall make no fcruple of declar¬
ing, that it I faw any neceflity for believing the leveral
articles of the Scripture cofmogony, to the extent that
fome very eminent divines and philofophers have judged
it to be neceffary, I (hould not hefitate to rejeCt all phi-
lofophical hypothefes, that have recourfe to time inde¬
finite, or to any production of minerals, which they are
not able to imitate, and confirm fynthetically. But my
ideas of the fubjeCt do not require this ; and that I
may not be fufpeCted of evading any fyftem that feems
to affect the chronology or cofmogony of the Bible, I
fhall in few words hate what my own fentiments are
upon the fubjeCt. Firft, then, I am perfuaded, that the
earth exhibits lufficient proofs of violent revolutions and
catafirophes ; and though none fuch can be fuppofed
to happen without the efpecial regard of God, and con-
l'equently for purpofes of the moll awful importance,
yet I do conceive that there may be in nature forces fuffi-
cient for the production of fuch efFeCts, without any
other miracle than the determination of God’s provi¬
dence, to place things in fuel) circurn fiances as to pro¬
duce fuch violent and unufual phenomena. I believe
in fome fuch revolutions all the firata of the earth have
been fractured and diflocated ; and that the fea has co¬
vered our continents, once certainly, but perhaps many
times; and I conceive the Mofaic deluge to have been
indifputably one fuch catafirophe, and to be confirmed
by many very extraordinary circumftances in the hiftory
and appearances of the earth, and of the prefen t race
of mankind. 1 do not regard the marine productions,
which are found much below the fuperficies of the
globe, to be proofs of the Mofaic univerfal deluge,
otherwife than as they clearly evince not merely the
poffibility, but actuality of fuch a cataftrophe as a ge¬
neral depreftion or elevation of the waters of the fea :
and as JSIofes could not attain to the knowledge of any
fuch event as the univerfal fubmerfion of the conti¬
nental parts of the globe, (fuppofing fuch to have

taken

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 327

taken place,) otherwife than by tradition or revelation,
I conceive we have an indifputable proof either that
the event was authentically tranfmitted, or miracu-
loufly revealed to him. I am not certain, nor do I
hefitate to acknowledge it, but that what is commonly
called the Mofaic colmogony might be the sera of fuch
another revolution ; when, after a new arrangement
of things, Adam and Eve were truly introduced into
the world as he defcribes, as the Protoplafts of the very
race to which we belong. I do not pretend to fay,
this was not actually the very aera of the very jirjl
creation of our planet and our fyftem ; much lefs would
I pretend to decide, that there has not been time fuffi-
cient fince, for the production and ordering of all our
mineral fubftances, by the operation of known phyfical
caufes : for I contend that there is now no knowing-
how the operation of fuch caufes may have been in
time pad retarded or accelerated. But I think it poffible,
without any impeachment of the veracity of the author
of the Pentateuch, that this globe and our whole fyftem
maybe much older than the race of Adam; nor would my
faith in the Bible be in the fmalleft degree ihaken, by
any philofophical proof that could be brought of ante¬
cedent revolutions in the body of the earth, let them
afcend as high as any theories require, fliort of infi¬
nity. This is not faid by way of evafion. I publHhed
the fame opinion four years ago, before the Huttonian
theory, which has been thought fo adverfe to the ac¬
count in the facred records, had been openly vindicated
by fo eminent an advocate as Profelfor Playfair. I fhall
beg leave to refer to my book, entitled ET; Ef; Me-
c-/r7jc, from p.75*to p. 129; where I have fully expreifed
my fentiments concerning the creation and hiftory of
man : and I make this reference the more particularly,
becaufe I find the Huttonian theory excufed by the
learned Profelfor, upon grounds entirely conformable
to the notions I have there avowed.

It is but a piece of juftice due to Dr. Hutton and his
learned advocate, to extract the paifage. “ On what
“ is now faid is grounded another objection to Dr.
“ Elutton’s theory, namely, that the high antiquity
“ afcribed by it to the earth is inconfiftent with that

Y 4 “ fyftem

3^8

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

fyftem of chronology which refts on the authority
of the facred writings. This objection would, no
“ doubt, be of weight, if the high antiquity in quel-
ce tion were not reftricted merely to the globe of the
<c earth , but were alfo extended to the human race :

that the origin of mankind does not go back beyond
ce fix or feven thoufand years, is a pofition fo involved
66 in the narrative of the Mofaic books, that any thing
u inconfiftent with it, would no doubt (land in oppofi-
iC tion to the teftimony of thofe ancient records. On
“ this fubjedt, however, geology is filent ; and the hif-
c * tory of arts and fciences, when traced as high as any
ei authentic monuments extend, refers the beginnings
64 of civilization to a date not very different from that
cc which has juft been mentioned. On the other hand,
44 the authority of the facred books feems to be but
“ little interefted in what regards the mere antiquity
44 of the earth itfelf; nor does it appear that their lan-
4* guage is to be underftood literally concerning the age
of that body, any more than concerning its figure or
44 its motion. It is but reafonable that we fhould extend
4’ to the geologift the fame liberty of fpeculation,
44 which the aftronomer and mathematician are already
4' in pofieflion of; and this may be done, by fuppofing
44 that the chronology of Mofes relates only to the hu-
4* man race.'3 See Playfair s Illujlrations of the Huttonian
Theory , §.125. 1 his is the vindication which the learned
Profeffor oppofes to the charge alluded to; and though
I am not prepared to fubfcribe generally to the fyftem
he defends, I cannot but agree with him in believing
that the chronology of Mofes relates chiefly, if not ex-
clulively, to the human race. Profeffor Robinfon feems
to be of the fame opinion, in his Proofs of a Confpiracy ;
where fpeaking of Voltaire’s confidence in the phe¬
nomena of the earth being in contradi&ion to the
Mofaic writings, and the feveral difputesupon this fub-
jecR he fays, 44 For my own part, I think the affair is
44 of little confequence ; Mofes writes the hiftory, not
44 of this globe, but of the race of Adam.” Pojlfcript ,
P* 544* 3^ edit. As to the particular epochas of the
revolutions of our globe, I fully conceive, that two at
leaft are alcertainable, viz. the firft previous to the in¬
troduction

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

3-9

trodu&ion of the Protoplafts, if that was not the ori¬
ginal creation of this planet; and the fecond the delude
of Noah.

I know that many divines, and many philofophers,
have thought it not allowable to refer the tera of the
creation of our globe to any period beyond that
fuppofed to be fixed by the introduction of the race of
Adam ; and fome have imagined it to be wrong, not to
include in this account even the whole of the viftble
univerfe ; (fee Jamiefon on the Vfe of f acred Hijlory ,
vol. i. 163.) I know that Origen imputes to Celfus,
who profelfed to believe that the world had been fub-
je£t to many revolutions, a defigri to have it believed
that the world was not created, lib. i. p. 16. edit .
Cantab. But I muft agree with Profeffor Playfair, that
there is a great difference between doubting of the
precife aera of the beginning or end of the world, and
afferting, that it had no beginning, and will have no end.
But to prove, that the idea of a pre-exiftent date of the
earth, is no ne-zu invention to meet the objections of mo¬
dern theories, or evade their calculations, I might refer
to a work publiflied by a M. Engel, in which he con¬
ceives that the angels inhabited the earth be fore man.) an
opinion which even M. de Luc feems inclined to coun¬
tenance ; fee his Lettres Jur la Terre et V Homme.
And our celebrated chronologift, Mr. Jack fon, ex¬
plains the paffage of the earth being <c without
“ form and void,” Gen. i. of its being for the time
void ot inhabitants: and he further fuppofes it pofti-
ble, that the chaotic Hate of the earth might not be
its fir ft creation, but the diftfolution of a former ftate,
whole period was determined, in order to a new form¬
ation of a different fyftern. And he likewife thinks,
the angels might have been the inhabitants of the pre-
exiflent orb. See his Chronological Antiquities, vol. i.

Whether this wras fo or not we {hall undoubted] y
never know, unlels God is pleafed to reveal it to us";
which we may not expeCt here , and hereafter it may
be no fuch fubjeCt ofeuriofity. 1 do not think philofo¬
phers have hitherto by any means proved, that the firft
creation of the globe muft unquejlionably be referred to a
period more remote than the origin of the prelent race
of mankind: and if they ever lliould prove it, I certainly

think

33 o

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

e:
6 (

think the Bible does by no means contradidl the pofff-
biJity of fuch a fyftem of things. 44 Immo licet me
44 non latent, ” fays a fenfible writer, 44 effe pios pa-
" riter et eruditos viros, qui facrum hiftoricum mundi
creationem non tam (pvcm quam defcriplifle

exiftimant ; ego tamen verbis ejus unice inhaereo, et,
44 ii modum creationis percontari pergas, ingenue fateor,
“ nihil me habere, quod tibi reponam, nifi illud effa-
44 turn divi Pauli, Ulrsi vob^sv ytottr^rirboa rs$ alovvas fa jpcth
“ ©sou, e)$ ro [Ay E'riQcLivoudvuuv rot t6[ae>cc ysyoysvai.”
Heb.xi. ver.3. 44Otiofa enim eft apud antiquos quofdair*
66 Ecclefiae Patres difputatio, annon mundi hujus partes
44 et regiones fuperiores, ac ille praecipue, quern angeli
44 inhabitant, bcatiffimus mundus orbi noftro per ignota
61 multa ftecula praeextiterit ? Otiofa etiam Cartefiana
44 hypothefis, quad paratus jam et omnibus vitae com-
44 modis inftru6lus orbis, in aere per multa faecula flui-
ei taverit ante, quam Adam, primus ejus incola, a Deo
44 ad ilium habitandum conderetur. Ecquid, quzefo, ft
44 haec omnia cognita penitus atque exploratiffima ha-
44 beremus, meliores inde reddi poftemus ? Sed in illo,
44 quern Moles nobis in fua cofmopoeio infinuat, con-
44 ceptu, quod Deus univerfum hoc ex 71’ihilo condiderit , ni-
44 hil otiofi latitat. Potiushic omnia ad pietatem, omnia
44 ad religionem confpirant. Quantam enim divinae po-
44 tentiae admirationem conceptus hie in animis noftris
44 excitare debet ? Quantum timorem erga potentifli-
44 mum Numen nobis infpirare ? quantum fiduciam nof-
44 tram in Deum acuere? et profe&o, idea, quod Deus
44 vaftum hunc terrarum orbem ex nihilo produxerit,
44 quod voluntas ejus, quae, utita dicam, umcoverbo fiat
44 declarata fuit, tot innumeris, ut philofophi loquun-
44 tur, modificationibus , et partium, quibus componitur,
difpofitionibus non poffibilitatem tantum fed exijicn-
tiarn dederit, longe major eft, quam ut humanus in-
44 telle&us pro dignitate illam aftequi valeat.” Vid.
Prafqtionem Chrifl . Ludovic . Scheidii ad Pro tog team cele-
berrimi Leibnitii.

Page 280. note (4).

The rapid progrefs lately made— •in mineralogy and che-
mijlry has led many to Juppofe , that the times are peculiarly
favourable for fuch enquiries and [peculations?^ ProfefTor

Playfair

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

33' 1

Playfair concludes his Illuflrations of the Huttonian
Theory with a note exprefsly on “ the Prejudices relating
“ to the Theory of the Earth ” at the fame time en¬
deavouring to {hew, (i that the mafs ot geological know-
“ ledge is now in that ftate of fermentation, from
“ which the true theory may be expe&ed to emerge.”
P. 516. If this is really the cafe, I vvifli all tiieo-
rifts may, as the learned Profellor himfelf directs,
keep to their objeft, and not attempt to explain thefirjl

origin of things. Seep. 51 1.

I have laid fo much in the preceding notes upon the
invincible obflacles, which feem to Hand in our way in
enquiring into the nature of the phylical operations that
have taken place in time paft in the body of the earth,
that for fear I lhould be thought to have any unrea-
fonable prejudice againft geological fpeculations in ge¬
neral, or to depreciate the manifold and important dil-
coveries of the age we live in, 1 {hall beg leave to Hate,
that my only objcdt is to fecure that relpedl to the
Bible, which I think philofophy can never be able to
{hake.— Though the Mofaic cofmogony, and hiftory of
the firH ages, is fimple, and free from all phyfical ex¬
plications of things ; yet home few points are touched
upon, which if philofophy fhall not approve, it may not
be admitted, I think, to contradict : as forinftance, Gen.
i. 9. is I think fufficient authority for us to believe
that unqueftionably Inch was once the condition ol this
globe, that its fuperficial parts at lead were in a Hate of
fluidity ; and as all our obfervations tend to Ihew, that
our Itrata were formed under the water, my faith in
this point would never be fhaken by any philofophical
calculations to prove the contrary : for though it
lhould be {hewn ever fo clearly that, according to our
prefent knowledge ot the folubility ol mineral fub-
lfances, it muft have required to hold in folution the^
fpheroidal (hell of the earth, 625 times its bulk of
water; (fee Playfair, 493 ;) yet f lhould conclude, that,
by fome circum Ranees or other unknown to us, the mi¬
neral bodies of the globe were then rendered foluble in
proportions different from thole which our experiments
difeover to us. And, I think, our moft recent Re¬
coveries in this line would particularly authorile fuch

a fuppofition. To take two in Ranees from the Hutto-

11 ian

33*

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

man theory. To account for the exigence of Kilkenny
coal, of all others the moll deflitute of bitumen, this
theory fuppofes it to have been fufed with an entire ab-
fence of preffure : whereas to account for pyrites, the
fame fyftenn fuppofes them to have been formed by
fufion under a ftrong preffure, by which its fulphur, a
fub fiance at leaf as volatile as bitumen, is kept m com¬
bination with the iron. Nowthefe fubftances have been
found in conjun&ion. The inference is plain. Again, an
objection has been made to the igneous origin of granite,
from the circumflance of the cryflals of quartz and
feldfpar mutually impreffing each other : whereas our
experiments formerly taught us to believe that thefe
two minerals were fufible at very different tempera¬
tures : it has fince however been difeovered, that the
cafe is Other wife, when they are reduced to powder ;
by which fmall change of circumflances, the feldfpar
is made to adt as a flux on the quartz. This point has
been afeertained by Sir James Ball’s experiments, and I
think by M. d’Arcet alfo ; fee his Memoire fur V Action
Ann Feu egal , &c. p. 1. §. 49. referred to by M. de
Sou Jure , Voyage dans les Alpes , vol. i. 166. I think
therefore, even if we had not the authority of fo great
a natural if as Air. Kirwan for fuch a conclufion, we
might reafonably infill upon the fuppofition, which I
have expreffed in Air. Kirwan ’s own words, in the Ser¬
mon; namely, that the chaos, whenever, or how often
foever, it may have exifled, may have been at the time
“ a more complex menftruum than any that has fince
“ been known.” Irijh. Phil. Tran/, vol. vi. Profeffor
Playfair himfelf acknowledges that one of the mofl
important principles involved in Dr. Hutton’s theory
was till lately, not only unknown, but could not be
difeovered ; namely, the detention of the aerial fluid in
lime flone expofed to the action of fire, under circum-
flances of great compreffion. Now let us only fuppofe
this difcqvery never had been made, what falfe hypo-
theles might have been framed as to the operations of
nature in time paft ! Red porphyry, M. le Comte de
Luiibn tell us, is compofed of an infinite number of
prickles oj the J'pecies op echinus , or [c a- chef nut. They are
placed pretty near each other, and form all the lmall
white fpots which are in porphyry. Who would not

upon

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

upon fuch authority have determined porphyry to have
been of aqueous origin, and to have contained marine
reliquiae? M. de Sauflure thought he had clearly dis¬
covered the whole hiltory of fubterraneous fires, when
the Canon Ricupero allured him, that ./Etna had thrown
out abundance of pyrites : he was undeceived when he
difeovcred them to be only cryllals of fchorl. But the
worthy Canon himfelf would not be convinced of the
miltake ; and thus the paji operations of nature became
liable to fuch mifreprelentations, as obliged the able
natural iff, to whom we owe the fadl, to record it,
though at the hazard of expofing a very worthy man
and very zealous obferver.

Now though all our late difcoveries and experi¬
ments undoubtedly tend to fecure us more and more
from errors of this nature, and therefore geology
may be laid to be greatly advanced ; yet certainly be¬
fore Pliilofophy may be allowed to contradict Revela¬
tion, we have a right to infill upon fuch a correct and
precife knowledge not only of the probable, but of the
pofjible circum fiances, under which nature may have
acted in time pall, as no progrels in human knowledge
can afford us an expectation of ; while the difcoveries
we make daily in chemillry, of the infinite ways in which
the combined actions of different fubftances may be m o¬
dified, {liould ferve to convince us, that after all the re-
iearches we can poffibly make into the primitive, or even
into any remote Hate of the globe, our conclufions may
be fallacious; for caufes may have operated then, which
operate no longer, or under circumliances which may
never again occur. Now among other things, the
time or period of fuch operations mull be for ever un¬
certain; for we know, more than ever we knew before,
that every operation depending on the aCtion of fire,
on the folution of fubftances, and above all on the de-
velopement of claltic fluids, may have been accelerated
or retarded, increafed or diminilhed, by Inch a variety
of accidents, as is pall all calculation ; and therefore I
think we may agree with M. de Luc, that “ time may
£i never be lubltituted for caufes f and that we had
better not have recourfe to time indefinite to account
for any geological phenomena, till we are able to point
out fome ftpecific and determinate effects that have

been

334

NOTES TO SERMON VI*

been produced within a given fpace of time. — There
are many very important points which remain to be
afcertained, and which are particularly ftill in difpute
between the Vulcanifts and Neptunifts; fuch as the di¬
minution of the general quantity of the aqueous fluid*
from the decompofltion of water* and other caufes ; a
fact pretty generally admitted and which perhaps the
difcovery of the formation of water from the combuf-
tion of the inflammable and vital airs, may render
more uncertain than ever. The different effects of
quick or flow refrigeration of fufed matters, is a point
not afcertainable, or feems to be fo. The non-exiftence
of air in lavas, and its exiflence in almofl: all, if not
every foffil, prelents many difficulties, as well as the
circumftance already noticed, of the evolution ordeten-

•j '

tion of volatile matters under different circumftances of
preflhre. Thefe notions of the difficulty of judging of
part operations are not taken up by way of evafion , any
more than other obfervations I have ventured to make :

I find it to be the opinion of others , and to have been
advanced where there was no queftion of theology to
interfere. The author of the Comparative View of the
Huttonian and Neptunian Syflems, very juftly, I think,
remarks, c< that when we confider what he has been at
<c the pains to examine into, viz. the influence of ag-
“ gregation in preventing folution, the power of tem-
ce perature in promoting it, the incalculable effe&s
“ refulting from the exertion of complicated affinities,
i{ and the poffibility of fubflances being compounds,
“ which our imperfect knowledge ranks as Ample, we
can have no hefitation in admitting the conclufion
iC which each feparately eflabliflies, that foffils may
e‘ have been formed by water, though apparently infolu -
<f ble in that fluid . And if an induction from facts fh all
“ render probable their aqueous origin, their prefent
“ infolubility will form no objection of real force. ”
This is only advanced indeed in regard to one point in
geology, namely, the Tol ability of quartz; but I think
it applies to all. The Huttonians may think fuch an
argument a geological evafion: but I am fure it is no
theological one; for, it muff be remembered, much that
Mofes relates is miraculous ; that is, be fpeaks ol mi¬
raculous interpofitions on the part of God, in the revo¬
lutions

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

335

lutions that have befallen the globe ; it is therefore no
wonder that the phylical pofjibility of them is not clearly
to be feen ; and as to the probability of their having
been miraculous , the difficulties that for ever hand in
the way of fueh refearches, and the endlefs difputes
they give rife to, mud furely be admitted to be no
contemptible proofs of the very fa6t.

Page 283. note (5.)

Though no fuch analyjis has been at all effectual to the
enabling us in any one injlance to produce fuch fubjiances ,
by any mixture oj the ajjigned ingredients .] M.Dolomieu,
in his paper ‘ 6 Sur les Pierres compojees et les Roches f in
the Journal de Pbyfique , infills upon it that we can have
no knowledge of the fpecific chemical operations which
took place at the birth of our globe, it being impoffi-
ble to recompoje any one jlone after the mojl curious and
nice analyjis : and this certainly appears to be a fair
conclufion to draw, as I have already intimated. The
theory, of which I have given a (ketch in my Sermon,
has for its author a M. C. Schmeider, and it was pub-
1 illied at Leipzig in 1802, under the following title :
“ Die Geognojie nach Chemifchen Grundzatzcnf i. e.
Geognofy (or Geology) explained on the principles of
Chemiftry. I only know it from fome extra&s which I
have feen, and I would by no means refer to it upon fo
partial and imperfect a knowledge of it, if my purpole
was only to expofe it ; but being founded on the cele¬
brated fcheme of Buffon, viz. that of deriving our
planetary fyftem from the diock of a comet upon the
body of the fun, I have the more particularly referred
to it, becaufe this very fuppofition feems to be as ftrong
an inftance of the grols miftakes we are liable to fall
into, by depping an inch beyond what facts will bear
us out in, as any circumdance whatsoever. Dr. Her-
fchel’s papers in the Philolophical T ranfa£tions, on the
fun's heat, mud be now pretty generally known: but,
independent of thefe, the nature of the fun has been
much too long a matter of doubt to juftify any perfons
aduming its ignition, as a foundation for a new theory.
I have already had occafion to advert to this in my
book on the' Plurality of Worlds ; fee pp. 122 — 128;
which I am forry to have occafion to refer to fo often:

33 ^

NOTES TO SERMON VL

bill, thefe notes being already much longer than I ex-
petted, I do not like to tranlcribe it, though it is par¬
ticularly applicable to the lubjedt we are upon : lee alfo
Waller ius , i eft . vii. and Lambert's Syflcm of the World ,
ch. iv. To (hew however how eafy it is to make a
world, I (hall give one fpecimen here of M. Schmeider’s
method. Alter having determined with Buffon, that
our globe was' ft ruck from the fun by a comet, he thus
proceeds methodically to arrange matters. “ L’atmo-
Sphere chaotique de la comete coula autour du globe me-
tallique ardent , etfut melee avec Jes exhalailons vapo-
reules ; la lolution des alkalis et des terres futdecom-
pofee par 1 ' acide carbonique : ceci dut donner bientot
une coagulation du fluide, dans laquelle les parties ho¬
mogenes s agi'egerent, et le jluide expanfibl&fXev'witxxu
liquid e: par ce liquid e le noyau me tallique fut eteint , mais
ll nt cefla pas d agir : il ceXla de decompoler V air avec
lequel il ne venoit plus en contact; maisil commence
“ decompoler Venn par fa chaleur. Une oxydatiom
“ ferment ante fut produite, comme dans les mines bru-
lantes des maifons confumees, et qu’on eteint par Beau •

1 odeur brulante indique V oxydation. De cette ma-
“ niere> non-fculement Venn a diminue, dans le fluid e
ki cbdotiqyfy mais il s’en eft fepare encore plus id acids
carbonique et mephitique et d tprincipes aqueux , &c. &c.”

T forbear to proceed, becaufe I am confident it would
be to no purpofe. Lord Shaftelbury long ago prepared
a rod for luch world-makers. “ We have,’" lays he
“ a fipmge fancy to be creators.— Every feft has a
recipe ; when you know it, you are matter of na¬
ture ; you folve all her phenomena j you fee all her
deligns, and can account for all her operations j ift
“ need were, you might perchance too be of her labo-
ratoiy, and work for her : at lead: one would imagine
“ the partizans of each modern fe& to have had this
conceit. They are all Archimedes’s in their way
“ and make a world upon eafier terms than he offered
“ to move one.” Moralijls , Part I. fe6L i. In regard
to the theory we have juft had occalion to notice, M.
de Luc has admirably obferved, that we may in vain
cn<i enge AX. Schmeider to produce ftones by luch pro-
ceilcs as he has been at fuch pains to defcribe, becaufe,
no doubt, he would always allege, that he had no

fragment

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

33)

fragment of the fun , or tail of a comet, to go to work
with ; and there could not be a better burlefque upon
the whole fyftem. “ Where waft thou when I laid
“ the foundations of the earth ? declare, if thou haft
<( underftanding. Wkereupon are the foundations
cc thereof fattened ? or who laid the corner ftone
“ thereof ?” Job xxxviih

Page 285. note (6).

IVby is there fo little faid of fecond caufes in this part of
the M of ate records We might furely add, why do we

read lo little, or rather nothing, of caufes entirely un¬
natural and monftrous, if Moles borrowed, as fome
would inlinuate, from Pagan mythologies ? — The fo-
briety of the facred text upon many topics is a ftrong
proof of its infpiration, when we confider what incre¬
dible ftories the Talmud and other writings of the
Jews contain. This is the more particular, as the
latter have been made a reafon for Juf petting the Pen¬
tateuch, &c. of containing exaggerations and interpo¬
lations. See Monthly Review of Dr, Jamiefon’ s Ufe of
Sacred Hijlory, Aug. 1804. The canon of Scripture
was complete before the Tanaim or Mijhnical Dotiors
began to add their traditions to them ; fee Prideaux's
Connection, vol. ii. 67. The Rabbins adopted Indian
fables ; fee IVilford on Egypt and the Nile , AJiatic Re-
fear ches, vol. iii.

Page 289. note (7).

Though, for what we know, derived , as they allege, from,
the Eajl.~\ M. Mallet, in his remarks on the Edda,
would derive the names of the days of the week from
the Eajl, with the other do&rines of the Celts : his
principal object indeed is, to identify the Scandinavian
and Oriental mythologies. It is certainly very proba¬
ble, that we do derive the names of our days from the
Eaft: fee upon this fubjeft M, le Gentil , Memoir es de
V Academ. — Sciences, 1771. Part II. Maurice's Indian
Antiquities, vol. v. Halhed’s Preface to his Code of Gentoo
Laws ; Kinderfley’ s Specimens of Hindu Literature,

2 Page

NOTES TO SERMON VL

Page 290. note (8).

The hebdomadal divijion , though originally of divine
infitutionh] Dr. Geddes conceives the fix days creation to
have been exprefsly invented by Mofes to account for
the Jewilh fahbath. We might reafonably afk, what
then could be the true account ? It is much better faid
by Profefior Jenkin, in his Reafonablenefs of Chrifianity ,
book ii. c. 9, If God faw fit to appoint one day in
iC feven to be a day of ref, this was fufficient realon
ec for the aflignment of fix days to the work of crea-
<e tion, independent of all other reafons.” Some have
imagined, and among others St. Auftin, ( de Civit . Dei ,
lib. ii. c. 6.) that the divifion of the work of creation
into fix days, was an invention of Mofes to accommo¬
date himfelf to the dull minds of the Jews ; and that
"this idea receives confirmation from Gen. ii. 4, 5, &c.
where Mofes appears to colled! the whole again into
the compafs of one day. But what bungling work
would this be, to ufe artifice, and then betray himfelf !
There is fomething very extraordinary in the inftitution
of thefabbath, as to both its moral and phyfical effedls;
and it is not unreafonable to fuppofe, with Profefior
Jenkin, that God might have been gracioufiy pleafed
to condudl his own operations after a method, which
fhould ferve for ever as an exemplar and model for the
works of man. It has always ftruck me as a remarkable
circum fiance* that Apion, who feems to have fpared no
pains, nor fcrupled any mifreprefentations, to invalidate
the antiquity of the Jews, when he exprefsly touched
upon the circumftance of their fabbath, {Jofephus contr .
Ap. lib. ii.) and went out of his way, to invent a paltry
reafon for their obfervation of the feventh day, Ihould not
have infilled upon the higher antiquity of the hebdoma¬
dal reckoning. This he would furely have done, had it
been a point at all capable of proof in thofe days, or
had it even been fufpedled; efpecially if there had been
any grounds for what Dion Caflius aflerts, lib. xxxvh.
namely, that both the hebdomadal reckoning, and
diftindtion of days, was derived from the Egyptians;
for this would have much better fuifed Apion’s argu¬
ment, (which was defigned to prove that the Jews de¬
rived every thing from Egypt,) than a frivolous critique?

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

339

on the term fabbath . But there is another circum-
ftance which ftrikes me, upon this head, namely, that
Apion, in his ft range attack upon the Jewifh fabbath,
clearly acknowledges the feventh day to have been
originally a day of reft. Now it is remarkable, that
this alfo feems to have defcended with the hebdoma¬
dal mode of reckoning, as Philo obferves ; for after
noticing the backwardnefs of all nations to adopt the
cuftoms of their neighbours, he writes, ’A A A* ovyp cytiz too
ryy.srzpa sysr ordvlag yap h rdyzrcu xa) o'vvstfis'pbtpeif /3a pSapovg,

\ \ ** / f \ t ~ \ < t * ^ > f

ZAAYjVCtC y YjTTElpCJJTCtC, VycriWtOCC, ZVV Yj 7CC SCVCC, 70, ZO'tfEplOC, EvptO-
Wry, Acrictv, ait aw aw rry olxovyJyry, an to tfspocruiv htf) 7 rzpara'
rig yap Try \spdv zxztvry h^tioywy bx zxTzrlyyxzv, ’ANE2IN
IIONX2N xa,) 'PA2TX2NHN avroy te xa) roig TfXyjridgovriv, ex
eA svSzpoig .ftovov, aAAa xa) tio'JAOig, paAA ov tis xa) vrfofyloig
citing ; (pfjcc'/Ei yap rj zxxz^esipia xa) it peg iracrav dyzKry, xa) ora
rfpog VTt^pecrlav ysyovzv avvpujtfov, xa^ditsp tiovKa Qsparfevovrd
rev tpvTEi tisri torry, pfydvzi xa) Ttpog tizvtioow xa) upvTotiv airawav
\tizay' ov yap spyog , b xXatiov, dX'A 8 tis itzraXoy k(f>sjrai rsy.slv,
r/ xapzov ovr iv any tipsy arQai, rfdvlow tiiacpsiydvcvv xar sxzlyry Tyjy
ryydpav, xa) dxntsp kXsvQsplav dyovtevy, KOI N XI KHPTFMATI
prtti=yog htAavoyrog. Tlsp) (31b M over. 447, edit. Paris, 1552.
See alfo Eufeby Evang. Prespar. 1. xiii. 12. where there
is as much in regard to the univerfal facrednefs of the fe¬
venth day. Now when we confider that Plato was for
referring the origin of all feftivals and days of reft, to
the inftitution of the godsj moved thereto by pity for
thofe that were horn for painful labour , we may, I think,
well conceive the hebdomadal mode of reckoning had
the very origin Mofes afligns to it. Plato’s expreffions
are curious, “ ©so) tis o'lxTsipavTsg to tojv aySpuntaw hitWovov
7 tspvxog yzvog ’ANARAYAAE te avrotg row IIONI2N Ira-
tc %aro tow EOprujy dywiSdg Tolg 0 zo~g." De Leg. lib. ii. If
we put then thefe things together, and confider that
the Jewifh reckoning of their days may be faid to
have been ftri£fly hebdomadal , that is, they were named
only according to their order, as firft, lecond, third,
<kc. and every feventh day alone was dittinguifhed by
a title, and that title fignificative of reft — fee Jofephus
co fit . Apion, and Antiq. Jud. lib. i. Parkhurft’ s Heb .
Lexicon, &c. a circumftance which Apion feems to
have paid regard to, even while he was endeavouring
to find another origin for the term itfelf, and which,
from the account of Philo, appears to have been geneC

z 2 rally

34°

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

rally tranfmitted with the hebdomadal mode of reckon-*
ing; while Plato exprefsly refers the hated days of
rejl in the Pagan religions, to the gods, in commijeration
of the labours of man ; we can fcarce, I think, forbear to
regard the fabbath as the true caufe and origin of the
hebdomadal divifion of time ; more efpecially if it was
obferved by the Patriarchs, which I think is fcarce to
be doubted ; fee Patrick on Gen, ii. 3 • and hence poffi-
bly all the myftery concerning the number seven,
which feems to have been a puzzle to the world al-
moft as long as it has endured. I know fome are ftill
for referring the hebdomadal reckoning, to the lunar
revolutions of 28 days, which were adopted in the
Eaft, and which led to the fubdivifion of four weeks of
feven days each, named after the planets. This would
include fomething of agronomy, and fomething of
idolatry ; but the circumftance of the feventh day be¬
ing a fabbath, or day of reft , would ftill remain to be
accounted for. . And this inftitution is all we have to
do with. Tacitus, in his ftrange conceit about the
Jews, that they meant to do honour to Saturn, by
keeping Saturday holy, notices its fahbatical chara&er,
“ Septimo die otium placuiffe ferunt.” Hiftor . lib. v. c.
4. It is curious, that the Chriftians in Tertullian’s
time fliould be accufed of worfhipping the fun, from
their o.bfervation of Sunday, and that the Jews in Taci¬
tus’s time, for a fimilar reafon, fhould be fufpe&ed of
honouring Saturn: but the one error may well ferve ta
explain the other.

Page 291. note (9).

Depends on fpeculations , which , however cautioufly con¬
duced, may never he allowed to difprove a faC, capable of
almoft pofttive demonftration.~\ Dr. Toulmin, whofe two
works on the antiquity and eternity of the world I have
before had occafion to mention, with an inconfiftency
which, it feems, he was himfelf unable to difeern, in
order to prove the great antiquity of our globe from
effefts, flow, progreffive , and uniform, (for this is the
chief drift of his argument,) prefents us with many cu¬
rious and well authenticated accounts of the amazing
efte<fts of volcanoes, earthquakes, and inundations. From
thefe we learn, that when nature even now a<5ts upon a

great

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

341

gT-eat fcale, fo far from requiring ages upon ages to
produce a habitable world, or deftroy one already in¬
habited, (lie can in not many days fend forth from the
bowels of the earth, matter that would extend more
than four times round the globe ; which is the amount of
Borellus’s calculations of the lava that had flowed from
yEtna in the eruption, 1669. We learn from other
accounts, that thirty days only are requifite to form an
ifland fix miles in diameter, or indeed only the half of
this time, that is, fifteen days, to elevate from the
bottom of a fea three hundred and twenty yards deep,
an ifland nine miles long, four and a half broad, and
which rifes 360 feet above the water. We fhould be
careful furely, from the teftimony only of thefe few
fadls, how we pretend to affign any fixed time for the
works of nature in time pad. Dr. Toulmin relies
much on Mr. Brydone’s celebrated data for calculating
the age of the world from the converfion of lava into
vegetable mould : but fince this fa was received as an
undoubted principle to judge from, it has been, un¬
luckily for thefe fyftem- framers, difcovered, that fome
lavas contain ingredients, dilpofing them to this pro-
cefs much fooner than others, fo that no certain con-
clufion can be drawn from this teft. See Watford s Let -
ters to Gibbon ; and Kirwan on Jlony Subjlances , Irijh Phil .
Tranf. vol. v. This circumftanee is the more particu¬
lar, becaufe it feems, in one inftance, to correfpond
with Dr. Toulmin's own ideas. I fliall ftate the very
cafe he adduces, and the refledlions he makes on it.
<c The late Emperor of Germany, in order to fatisfy
“ his curiofity in fo important a particular, having firfl:
<c obtained permiflion from the Grand Signior, caufed
“ fome piles of wood to be drawn up, on which the
(c bridge which Trajan had thrown over the Danube
“ had been founded. They examined attentively thefe
ic wooden piles, and obferved that the petrifaction was
(< advanced no more than three fourths of an inch in
€C fifteen hundred and fome odd years. From this cir-
<c cumftance they concluded that a piece of wood of
“ equal thicknefs, and forty feet in length, would be
“ petrified an inch in twenty ages; and would employ,

“ to arrive at its total tranfmutation, ninety-fix thoufand
“ years. And from hence, fay they, we may judge of

23 “ the

343

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

<e the time that any petrified trees difcovered in the body
(i of the earth have been buried. ” Now, fays Dr. Toul¬
min, and I think he is very right, this reafoning is far
from being conclufive. For, u in certain circumjlances
6e and Jituations , petrifaction may be fuppofed to ad-
6C vance in a manner totally different) and with much
i( greater rapidity , than in the waters of the Danube.5 ’
So much depends on circumjlances and foliation, in all
the operations of nature, that, without the precife
knowledge ot both, it is abfurd to rely on calculations
founded entirely on data of our own invention. In this
reflection I might alfo boaft of having Dr. Toulmin on
my tide: (i How abfurd,” (fays he upon one occafion,)
“ and fruitlefs, every recourfe to calculation on the
44 fubjeCt of the world’s and nature’s firff exiftence !5>
And fo fay we : but then Dr. Toulmin would have his
calculations as well as others; and they appear to have
fo outrun all his expectations, that not being able to
ftop, after making the world inconceivably old, he de¬
termined at length that it rauft have been eternal..

Page 295'. note (10).

The effects — as related by Mofes — have regard only
to the power and providence of God ; which thofe muji
have leave to meajure by their own Reafon , who have fo
little Reafon as not to Jee the abj'urdity of itf\ We cannot
difpenfe with obferving, fays BufFon, that Burnet,
Woodward, Whifton, and moft of thefe authors, have
committed an error which deferves to be cleared up ;
which is that of having looked upon the deluge as
poffible by the aClion of natural caufes, whereas Scrip¬
ture prefer. ts it to us as produced by the immediate
will of God. There is no natural caufe which can pro¬
duce on the whole furface of the earth the quantity of wa¬
ter required to cover the highejl mountains: and if even we
could imagine a caufe proportionate to this effeCt, it
would ftill be impoffiblc to find another caufe capable of
making the water to difappear. I like his caution
about meddling with a miracle: but I ftill think natu¬
ral caufes might have been made ufe of. At leaf! I
cannot help difregarding entirely all calculations to
the contrary. An univerfal deluge, fays M. de Vol¬
taire with the utmofl confidence, is impoffible ; the

fea

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

343 '

Tea might gradually, he tells us, have overflowed the
continents; but then it muji have taken up as much as
two million two hundred thoufand years, to do it com¬
pletely. Bhilofoph . DiB. art. Deluge. I think Dr.
Halley was as able to calculate as Voltaire; and he has
ventured to aflure us, that if, at the time of the deluge,
the centre of gravitation was by divine power removed
towards the middle of the then inhabited parts of the
world, a change of place but the two thoufandth part
of the radius of this globe were fufficient to bury the
tops of the higheft hills under water. Mifc. CurioJ .
vol. i. Difc. on Gravity. Reafon anfwering reafon, fays
Sir Walter Raleigh, all the waters mixed within the
earth are fully fufficient to cover the fpace of 30 miles
in height. The extravagant altitude of hills he was
willing to allow for. This may be fanciful ; but cer¬
tainly many as grave and fober calculations have been
made on the one fide as the other. There is a very in¬
genious one, by Sir Henry Englefield, to be feen in
Geddes’s Verjion of the Bible, Gen. vii. 20; a calculation
which might have fobered the fcepticifm of the critic,
had he not been particularly inclined to difpute all. the
facts related by Mofes. The author of the Pentateuch
certainly hints, at leaft, at the operation of natural
caufes; and, fo far from thinking them not fufficient, or
that there was a want of water to have gone further,
had it been neceffiary, he particularly tells us, tc the
“ fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven
“ were flopped , and the rains of heaven refrained
which plainly intimates, that whatever fecondary caufes
God was pleafed to employ to bring the deluge on,
they required a check* from proceeding further than
was neceffiary.

When we argue again ft any reputed a£ts of Provi¬
dence, Purely for our own credit we ought to be cer¬
tain that we have a full comprehenfion of the feveral cir-
cumftances that require to be confidered. Thofe an¬
cient philofophers who contended that the torrid and
frigid zones were uninhabitable, fancied they had
found a fair objection again ft the providence of God.
But how infignificant do all their reafonings now ap¬
pear, fince we know that thefe large portions of the
globe are not only habitable, but that God has fo dil-

z 4 poled

344

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

pofed matters, as to render the former at lead in many
refpe£Is pleafant and delightful ! Lucretius was one
of thofe philofophers alluded to ; and fo very confident
was he that he knew perfectly how to argue the mat¬
ter, that he begins the fubjecSI with an <c aufim confir-
“ mare’" — -

“ Hoc tamen ex ipjis Cceli ratlonibus aufim
u Confirmare —

“ Inde duas porro prope partes fervidus ardor,

“ Affiduufque geli cafus, mortalibus aufert." Lib. v.

See alfo Artjlot . Meteor . lib. ii. c. 5. Pliny has the
fame, only he contradicts himfelf in other places.
They might reafon truly after all, as a very learned
writer has obferved, €< in regard to the ordinary effects
of the fun’s prefence or abfence : but there is a con-
“ currency of feveral other things, which temper the
u air, which they could not underftand.” Orig. Sacr «
Part II. 91. How much more juft rauft this remark
appear, now we know, that the heat of the fun’s rays
depends on the modifications they become fubje£t to
in their paffage through the atmof'phere, and at the
furface of the earth ! If we look back to many old
objections advanced againft the truth of the Mofaic
and Chriftian revelations, we muft acknowledge, that
the objectors were not competent to judge of the fub-
ject ; and let us beware left the fame fhould prove to be
the cafe with us. Even the Ark, upon which fo much
has been laid, has as many calculations in its favour, as
againft it : and fome very curious ones : fee Burgh's
'Dignity of Human Nature , p. 465. and Hartley on Many
p. 371. “ So,” fays the latter very learned author,
e( that, what was thought an objection in this particu-
“ lar, is even fome evidence.”

We are undoubtedly arrived at one certainty in re¬
gard to the poflibility of an univerfal deluge, whether
our calculations will prove the fact or not : we know
that the fea has one time or other covered all our con¬
tinents, and depofited regular marine reliquia?, to the
height of 14.190 Englifh feet above the level of the fea.
Hi/7, de V Acad, des Sciences , 1770. Playfair s Illuftrations ,
p. 200. Now if we enquire of philofophers, how it
happens that the fea no longer overflows thefe parts,

an 4

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

345

and in what manner it can have abandoned its ancient
bed ; if fome tell us, that it could not have retired
fuddenly, others will as confidently allure us, it could
not have retreated gradually; and therefore I mull con-
fefs, that I have long been fatisfied, let what will be¬
come of the phylical poflibility of an univerfal deluge,
that this very circumftance of the fea’s retreat is, in
refpeft to the utmofl efforts of human knowledge, (to
difcover the exact flate of the cafe,) miraculous ; and
as one miracle is as credible as another, I am quite
ready to believe that , which is confirmed by many
ftrong circum fiances in the hiflory of man, which is
exprefsly recorded as an act of God’s providence, and
which is fo confiflent with the natural appearances of
the body of the earth, that (whether philofophers can
find water enough, or not, to cover our globe, in the
common florehoufes of nature) we cannot poffibly
doubt the general fa£t of the water’s having covered
the continental parts of the earth, though Mofes could
not have been acquainted with the evidences we have
for the fa£t, even had he been a profeffed geologift.

Page 296. note (11).

The catajlrophe of the deluge , for what we know , may
he fully J'ufficient to account for all thofe furprifing cir-
cumjlances of fofil bodies found in places where 710 corre -
fpondent animals or vegetables now exijl.~\ I have already
obferved, in Note (3), that we are not to attribute to
the Mofaic deluge the depofition of all the marine re¬
liquiae we find in our flrata; and therefore I hope I
fhall not be fufpe&ed of a defire to folve every diffi¬
culty by a miracle, to the exclufion of all examination
and enquiry. Of things poffible, we are certainly not
competent judges ; but of what is probable, we may be
allowed to form conjectures. That our flrata have been
formed under water feems an unqueflionable fat ; and
under water abounding in marine animals of different
deferiptions, cannot be doubted. That much vegeta¬
ble matter has been overwhelmed alfo feems certain;
and therefore we mufl conclude, that at one time or
other the fea has covered the continental parts of the
globe, fubfequently to the exiflence of animals and
growth of vegetables ; and we are therefore certainly

inhabiting'-

V X * Q

34*5 NOTES TO SERMON VL

inhabiting “ a dry land/’ which has undergone great
changes. Why fhould we wonder then to find things
in the bowels of the earth indicative of fuch changes ?
“ When we are informed, that the earth which we
u now inhabit is the burying-place of a former earth, it
‘c is as reafonable, that we fhould dig up the remains
“■and ruins of it, as that we fhould find the bones and
“ coffins of former generations in the earth of a church-
“ yard.” Jones’s Sermon on the Natural Hijlory of the
Earth , &c, We read of great changes, we have the evi¬
dences of fuch changes under our feet ; and yet fhall we
fuffer nothing to folve our doubts, but our own furmifes
and theories, founded on the common courfe of things ?
Whereas the very circumftance that fuch changes have
happened, as we are unable to account for according
to our prefent notions of things, fhould make us very
diffident of affigning caufes at random ; much more of
difputing a record, which exprefsly tells us of a differ¬
ent date of things. Whether Mofes had ever told us
fo or not, our own obfervations would now ferve to.
Convince us, that as our continents are evidently in a
poftdiluvian (late, there muft have been alfo an antedi¬
luvian fiate of things, in which nothing perhaps was
exadtly as we fee it now. We have the teflimony both
of facred and profane hiftory, to the fadt of men’s Jives
having been formerly much longer than they now are :
this would feem to indicate of itfelf very important
changes in the phyfical conditution of the globe, though
it is not within the bounds of probability, that we
fhould ever be able to trace what thofe changes have
exadtly been. Nor do I think it will ever be more
poffible for us to account exadfly for the remains of
tropical animals now found near the polar regions.
The only queftion concerning them feems to be, whe¬
ther they lived and died where we find them depofited,
or whether they have been violently tranfported thi¬
ther by the waters of the deluge. Mr. Kirvvan has
elpoufed the latter opinion, in oppofition to fome of the
rued eminent of his cotemporaries : he apprehends,
that at the time of the deluge an immenle torrent
flowed northward, carrying with it the products of the
tropical countries. See his Paper in the 6th vol. of
the Irijb Tr a? factions.

Thofe

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

347

-Thofewho have imagined they lived and died where
we find them, have generally concluded, that the cli¬
mate has undergone a change ; but this ieems now to
be thought unnecelfary. The body of a rhinoceros has
recently been difcovered, fo little changed, that we *
muft fubftitute one wonder for another, it feems, and
rather believe that tropical animals could formerly
endure a Siberian climate, than that a body buried in
a warm climate could have refilled putrefaction. See
Playfair's lllujlrations , pp. 473» 474* The ^ame phe¬
nomenon is fuppofed to invalidate every hypothefis of
a violent tranfportation ; as the body could not have
refilled the deftruCtive effeCts of luch an inundation.
But without pretending to fettle thefe differences, I
mull confefs, I fiiould rather incline to think the cir-
cumllances of the globe changed, than the nature and
conllitution of thefe animals. And though I am con¬
vinced by no hypothefis , yet I do not fee why the Hut-
tonian theory, as Profelfor Playfair infifts, is the only
one that can refolve our doubts upon this head ; or
why this fingle inllance Ihould feem fo calculated
to exclude every other hypothefis. I do not fee why
even the rhinocerofes found in Siberia may not have
enjoyed there a much higher temperature, during their
lives, and yet their bodies, buried at the time of the
deluge, or fince, been expofed to cold fufficient to pre-
ferve them from putrefaction. I only Ipeak of the
poffibility of things ; and fo far, I muft fay, M. de
Luc’s theory feems the leaft exceptionable, by con¬
necting both thefe faCts ; for he fuppofes, that, by the
fudden finking of the fea, the level of which is always
the fenfible bafe of the atmofphere, lands, which for¬
merly occupied the lower regions of the air, were
railed to a much colder region. There is no doubt,
but that this may have happened ; and though perhaps
it is no nearer the exaCt truth than other hypothefes,
yet it is certainly IfriCtly philofophical, confidering that
the effeCt of the fun’s rays is now well known to de¬
pend fo immediately on the condition of the atmo-
iphere, and the flate of things at the l’urface of the
earth. That fuch changes do take place upon a much
fmaller fcale, and more gradually, I have fliewn in the
Sermon, by a reference to many authors, who deicribe

things

34s

NOTES TO SERMON VL

things differently from what we perceive them to be
now. It pail changes feem to have been more rapid
and more extenfive, we certainly read of correfpondent
cataftrophes. The Chineffc, in their account of the
deluge, have a&ually preferved a tradition, that at the
time of the deluge the heavens funk lower towards the
north. See Faber’s Horez JMofaicee. See alfo the Ap¬
pendix to Douglas’s DiJJertation on the - Antiquity of the
Farth.

M. de Luc very judicioufly obferves, that we are dill
too ignorant of the compofition of the atmofphere, to
fpeak decifivety upon fuch fubjedls ; and I doubt we
are much too ignorant of many other things, to be
able to folve various geological phenomena, efpecially
fuch as we are fpeaking of: for how do we know what
fpecific caufes may have operated in the body of the
earth, to retard or prevent the effe&s of putrefaction in
the body of the rhinoceros alluded to ? which is ac¬
knowledged to be an injlantia fingular’is . We happen
to have an apparent caufe in the coldnefs of Siberia ;
but this is far from being a key to all our difficulties,
as every one mud perceive. If it tells us how the dead
body has been preferved, it by no means informs us
how the living body was enabled to exift. We mud
dill acknowledge fome great change ; and the only
queftions will be, when did this happen, and how did
it happen ? Upon both thefe fubjedts there is as much
difcordancy of opinion, as upon any other; fome mak¬
ing the prefent date of things, to be very ancient, and
others comparatively recent. M. de Luc has certainly
diftinguiffied himfelf mod by his enquiries into the re¬
cent origin of our continents ; his relearches being di¬
rected principally to five clades of phenomena ; the de-
pofited materials of vegetation continually accumulat¬
ing ; the change of vegetables into turfy earth; the
diminution of fertility on the high mountains, from
the accumulations of fnow and ice ; the depofitions of
the waters of the mountains, and the fubdances, which
the rivers carry to the fea : but all his fadts adduced to
prove the low antiquity of our continents certainly de-
ierve to be well confidered.

I have already given one extract from M. Dolomieu,
in confirmation of M. de Luc’s hypothefis of the low

anti-

NOTES TO SERMON Vi.

349

antiquity of our continents: I (hall tranfcribe two more,
together with a flmilar teftimony on the part of M. de
Sauflure. They muft be well known to naturalifts, but
not fo generally known, perhaps, to theologians ; who,
without any means of verifying fuch fa£ts from actual
obfervation, ftiould at leak be freed from all alarm
-arifing from the extravagant calculations with which
the world have been amufed, and in regard to which I
have endeavoured to (hew, firft, that they muft all be, in
the nature of things, extremely precarious ; fecondly,
that they do not appear immediately to affebt the Scrip¬
ture hiftory ot man , even if they lhould feem to be well
founded; and thirdly, that they are difaliowed by
many very eminent and relpe&able naturalifts. In Ro-
zier’s Journal XL. M. Dolomieu, in his Paper Jur les
Pierres compofees , &c. thus expreffes himfelf : (( Je di-
£( rai done avec M. de Luc , l’etat a£luel de nos con-
<c tinens n’eft: pas ancien ; je penferai avec lui qu’il
<c n’y a pas long-temps qu’ils ont ete donnes ou rendus
“ ainji modifies a Pempire de rhomme.” And again,
<c Je dirai aufli qu’il n’y a point de mefure pour le temps
“ dans les epoques anterieures, et que l’imagi nation
i( peut y prodiguer des ftecles avec autant de facilite
“ que les minutes.” lb.

M. de Saufiure’s teftimony is to the following effect;

Les blocs de pierre, dont eft charge le bas de ce gla-
<( cier, invitent a une reflexion aftez importante: lorl'que
“ l’on confidere leur nombre, et que Pon penfe qu’ils
(C fe depofent et s’accumulent a cette extremite du gla-
“ cier a mefure que ces glaces l'e fondent, on eft etonne
<c qu’il n’y en ait pas des amas beaucoup plus confide-
“ rabies : et cette obfervation d’accord en cela avec
<c beaucoup d’autres, donne lieu de croire, comme lefait
(S M. de Luc, que l’etat a£tuel de notre globe n’eft
fi point aufti ancien que quelques philofophes Pont ima-
“ gine.” Voyage dans les Alpes , vol. iii. 29. I know
there are philofophers, perhaps as eminent, who may
be lurprifed to fee obfervation s revived, which they ap¬
prehend their theories have effectually contradicted. I
can only judge for myfelf; I have carefully examined
all that have come in my way, and I confefs 1 fee no
reafon whatever for withholding the evidences I have
adduced.

35o

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

As to the quedion concerning the fpecific caufe of
fuch changes as have happened, it has been common
to refer them to a change in the pofition of the axis of
the globe ; a circumdance I have noticed in the Ser¬
mon. But fome very eminent adronomers, and among
thefe MM. Caflini and Le Gentil, have declared it to
be their opinion, that the deluge did not occalion any
change in the axis of the globe, or at all affect the ce-
leftial movements : and I believe there is in Hazier* s
Journal a Paper by the celebrated M. Lalande, exprefsly
to prove this. . Whether it did fo happen, or that the
centre of gravity was altered, as many others have fup-
pofed, I cannot pretend to judge ; but I mult notice,
that Dr. Toulmin, who believes that the pofitions of
the axis of the globe may have been changed, infids
upon it, that if this change has taken place, it mujl
have been an event of “ a flow and gradual progref-
“ fion.” We need only afk, why fo ? and I afk it the
more particularly, becaufe the fame dogmatical writer
profeffes to think, that every thing related of an uni-
verfal deluge muff needs imprefs us with infurmounta-
ble incredulity : “ In fhort,” fays he, “ they never can
“ be reconciled, never can be thought reconcileable to
“ Reafon, by the fenfible and enlightened part of the
“ human fpecies.” And yet he is difpofed to think
the pofition of the axis of the globe has been changed;
which, for what we know, may have been, and in the
eftimation of many fenfible and very curious writers
actually was, the very caufe, under the providence of
God, of the other changes at lead, that took place at
the time of the deluge ; only he is certain this could
not have happened quickly or fuddenly ; and there we
mud leave him.

As to the extinction of animals, now found in a fof-
fil date, though a curious circumdance, I cannot fee
that it furnilhes any pofitive argument, in regard either
to the high or low antiquity of the globe. For though
it may be intimately connected with the other phyfical
changes, which the globe has undergone, it tells us
nothing with regard to the particular period of fuch
changes. M. de Luc notices the Jucceftion of different
fpecies of organized bodies to be found in our drata*
many ol which are not now to be met with. And as

his

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

his hypothecs is founded on the fuppofition of fuccef*
live precipitations from a liquid, he conceives, that the
determining caufes of fuch precipitations wrought fuch
changes in the remaining fea, and in the atmofphere,
as materially to affedt the animals inhabiting them; and
even to occafion the extindlion of many, as of the cor¬
nua ammonis , helemnite , See. This is undoubtedly very
plaufible, and relates to a difficulty too often overlook¬
ed. See alfo the Protogcea of Leibnitz, §. 26. The exadl
periods of fuch operations Hill remain infcrutable,
though M. de Luc’s epochs of nature (for he alfo con¬
ceives the fix days of Mofes to have been fix periods)
are certainly by no means fo extravagant as M. Ruf-
fon’s.

The remains of marine animals we know to be con¬
vertible into a mineral fubftance, of great ufe and im¬
portance in the economy of the world ; and therefore
man may have been as much benefited by their ex¬
tindlion, as by their exiftence. Their great abundance
during the period of the formation of our ftrata, may
reafonably be thought a fpecial adl of God’s provi¬
dence; and as we are taught to believe, that the wa¬
ters exifted before the dry land of the globe, their pre-
exiftence is highly probable ; and it is remarkable, that
in this, particular all our geological enquiries tend to
confirm the Mofaic account. As to the extindlion of
terrejlrial animals, this may alfo have happened, and
certainly feems to have happened, in lbme inftances, by
a change of climates; but fome may become extindl by
accident, and I think this a circumuance deferving our
confideration.

M. de SaufTure thinks it probable, {Voyage dans les
Alpes , vol. iii.) that both the chamois and the marmotte
will foon be extindl ; and we know, that in the ac¬
counts of fome of the Roman triumphs and feftivals,
we read of many camelopards exhibited for the amufe-
ment and wanton fport of the people : an animal now
fo rare, as fcarcely ever to be feen or known. The
poffibility of the extindlion of any fpecies of animals,
if the world has endured for a vaft fucceffion of ages,
much more if it was defigned to endure for ever, is a
circumftance, which may afford much matter of fpecu-
lation to philofophers. In the three inilances above.

NOTES TO SERMON VL

35^

it would not be difficult to meafure the time , at leaft be-«
tween the great abundance of certain fpecies, and fucb
a ffate. of rarity, as borders upon extinction. In the
mean time, no new animals are brought into exigence
to fupply their places, nor any provifion, that I know
ot, made for fuch a renovation of things. This may
furcl^ not be confidered as affording any argument in
proof of the great antiquity of the prefent ffate of
things, when we find, from the foflil remains of ani¬
mals that are dug up, many fpecies are already become
extinct; and we have certain proof, that many are pro¬
ceeding to extinction, not imperceptibly, but rapidly.

I have already had occafion to notice the expence
and confumption of metals and fuel, without any ade¬
quate means of renewal difcoverable. I believe our
own country would fupply inftances among the ani¬
mals, correspondent to the above. Not to dwell upon
the extinction of wolves , which was brought about by
defign, many fpecies of wild birds are every day be¬
coming more laie, as quails, buftards, the wood growfe
or cock of the wood, &c. If it fhould be faid, that
thefe wild animals are diminifiied by the depredations
of man, and that they are not miffed in confequence of
the greater increafe of domefticated animals; yet both
thefe circumftances being immediately connected with
the progrefs of fociety and civilization of man, become
m themselves chronometers by no means defpicable :
they point to an end, and furely alfo to a beginning.
Thofe that are only found in a foffil ffate, give intima¬
tion of a former ffate. of things, and a revolution of
great extent; all which we have recorded. Thofe
whofe decreafe and extinction are meafurable and af-
fignable, feem fo connected with the population of the
world, and the progrefs of fociety, as to keep pace with
both. What may be renewed or multiplied by art
and care, for the ufe of man, may be long continued ;
but nature feems evidently to point both to a begin¬
ning and an end, by no means fo diftant from each
otier, as fome feem to fuppofe. Though calculations
can never determine what muff depend only on the

aa- Proy*dence °f God, yet the wafte and pofitive
cleltruction of many confumable commodities, (fome of
which, as metals, are thought to owe their production

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

353

to convulfions, which have Ihaken the very foundations
ot the earth ; lee Playfair , 254, and Wallerius , §. xxiv.)
added to the vilible decreafe and probable extindtion of
wild animals, feem to point to a period not very diliant,
when, to repeat M. Dolomieu’s expreflion, our prefent
continents “ ont ete donnes ou rendus ainfi modifies d
i( V empire de Vhomme

Page 298. note (12).

while the fad itfelf undoubtedly fands corroborated
by many collateral tefiimonies.] There is no fact of anti-
quity, perhaps, of which fuch a variety of proofs can
be adduced, as of the deluge. It is interwoven with
all mythologies, and diredtly alluded to by many an¬
cient hiflorians. Belides the references already ad¬
duced, fee Revelation examined with Candour , Dilferta-
tions xiii. xiv. and Dr. Jamie fon on the (Jfe of Sacred
Hiflory , vol. i. Difquifition i.; where the Pagan confirm¬
ations of this event, as well as of the creation, are
not merely referred to, but very ingenioufly, and with¬
out extravagance, reconciled with the Mofaic records.
That author alfo fhews, that what the Pagan accounts
omitted was exactly what Mofes, as an inlpired writer,
was likely to be commiffioned to record, as God’s warn¬
ing to the world, &c. not noticed by JBerofus, in his
account of Xithuthrus.

Page 302. note (13).

Put which , befides all other tejlimonies , the face of the
whole globe , and the obfervations of naturalifis , have been
Jmce found, in a mojl J'urprifing manner , to corroborate
and confirm.] Mr. Hume, fpeaking of the Pentateuch,
obferves, that it is not corroborated by any concurring
teltimony. Surely, that the traditions ot all nations,
and the records ot all fucceeding ages, and all fubfe-
quent difcoveries, lliould generally concur with the
fadts reported by Mofes, is the molt convincing tefti-
mony we could require, confidering the nature of thofe
fadts. RoulTeau alfo is for inlifting on univerfal figns , as
a teft of a Revelation. Now we may furely afiert, that
we have fuch in the teliimonies alluded to ; and much
Itronger than thole on which he would found his Natu¬
ral Religion. The latter have continually been mi (taken

a a and

354

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

and mi funder flood : but the defedt of all contradictory
evidences in regard to the faCts and events recorded by
Mofes, hiftorical, miraculous, and natural ; as well as
the confirmation they have conflantly received, from
the face of nature , the reports of travellers, and the con-
fent of naturalifls, may well be adduced as figns, u qui
“ font de tous les temps, et de tous les lieux, egale-
(C ment fenfibles a tous les hommes, grands et petits,
u favans et ignorans, Europeens, Indiens, Africains,
e( Sauvages.” Emile , vol. iii. 91.

SERMON

SERMON VII.

Jude, ver. 10.

But thefe fpeak evil of thofe things which they know not/

In my former Difcourfe I have endeavoured
to fhew, as briefly as I could, but with a
view to particular queflions, and fuch as ap¬
peared to me of the firfl importance, that in
the three branches of Metaphyfics, Phylics,
and Hiftory, notwithflanding the acknow¬
ledged advancement of human fcience, Rea-
fon cannot with propriety, at this day, boafl
of any advantages obtained over Revelation.
I Audi now proceed, under the head of Cri¬
ticism, to notice fome things, which the
conduct of our opponents renders peculiarly
neceflary.

Under the head of'Criticifm, then, we have
three things to complain of : firfl, the con¬
tempt thrown on Learning and Criticifm in

a a 2 general.

SERMON VII.

356

general, for particular ends : fecondly, the
frequent abufe of Criticifm and authorities :
and thirdly, demands made upon us, which
we are under no obligation to anfwer.

And firft, as to the contempt thrown on
Learning and Criticifm in general. The au¬
thor of the Age of Reafon has ventured to
allure the world, that only living languages
are of ufe in the advancement of know¬
ledge ( 1 ) ; and we know, that, in this expref-
lion, the chief knowledge he had in view
was fuch as he efpecially thought conducive
to the overthrow of revealed Religion. A
much more eminent writer a on the conti¬
nent, with exadly the fame views, but with
an air of levity quite unbefitting the fubjed,
allures us alfo, that in the day of judgment
we fhall not be queftioned, whether we have
miftaken one Hebrew letter for another, as
a Caph for a Beth, or a Yod for a Van . We
know the iinpreffion that fuch inlinuations
muft be calculated to make on the minds of
a large majority of the people ; and there¬
fore it may not be amifs to fhew, that as far
as Criticifm and Learning are become necel-

a Voltaire.

laiy

SERMON VII.

357

fary to the promulgation and due under-
ftanding of our molt holy Religion, they have
been ejpecially rendered Jo by the conduct
of thofe very perfons, who, for reafons, no
doubt, well known to themfelves, thus pre¬
tend to objed to their utility and import¬
ance. For though there can be no danger
from fuch vain and confident affertions, and
from Rich quarters, to the caufe of literature
in general ; no danger, furely, of any being
turned afide from the important Rudy of the
dead languages by the cavils of a Paine, or
the farcafms of a Voltaire ; yet, in refped to
Revelation, and Chriftianity more particu¬
larly, fuch infinuations are always likely to
receive fupport from a common prejudice
among believers themfelves ; a prejudice
continually made a handle of by Deifts,
namely, that a religion efpecially defigned
to be preached to the poor , mu ft have been
fo communicated, as to require no extraor¬
dinary capacity, nor any great extent of
learning, in thofe who were to derive from
it the bleffings and benefits of inftruction,
of hope, of comfort, and lalvation !

But all this may be granted, and yet Learn¬
ing and Criticifm lofe nothing of their im-

a a 3 portance ;

35$

SERMON VII.

portance; while it will be eafy to Ihew.
that fuch difparagement and contempt of
both, as I have above alluded to, have an
immediate tendency to deprive us of the
only weapon, which can effectually defend,
not the learned only, but the people at large ,
trom the delufions of fop hilt ry, and the mif-
reprefentations of ignorance ; from both of
which, it is not too much to fav, the world
has never been more in danger, than during
this boafted age of Reafon. For though
Criticifm and Learning are treated in this
contemptuous manner by Deifts, when thev

a-'

interfere with their views ; yet they do not
difdain to apply them in fupport of their
own caufe, to the great abufe of both, and
the greateft poffible injury to the caufe of
truth. The very work entitled the Age of
Reafon, which was exprefsly intended to be
diffeminated among all ranks of people, and
would have been fo, but for the timely and
wife interpolition of the Legiflature, though
certainly not either learned or critical in the
ltrict fenle of thole terms, yet contained
much reading milapplied, and many very
ignorant attempts at Criticifm, for the baled
and molt cruel purpofes.

But

SERMON VII.

359

Rut a more appropriate example could
fcarcely perhaps be adduced, than in the cafe
of the laft writer I had occafion to mention.
The unlearned will, no doubt, be eafily per*
iiiaded, that it is unworthy of God’s majefty
and juftice, to queftion any ignorant per-
fon concerning any doblrines he may have
efpoufed, through the mere miftake of one
Hebrew letter for another : yet very much
more than what that author would reprefent
to us may unquellionably depend on fuch
an error ; nor would it be difficult to fhew
at length, as a proof particularly applicable,
that the very writer in queftion has much
aggravated a very futile charge, which he
has advanced againft the divine ' authority of
the Bible, by the unwarrantable infertion or
mifconftru&ion of one of the very letters
he mentions (a), though he was himfelf per¬
haps quite unaware of this, and unaware be¬
tides, that it was an error in the tranllation
he ufed. The injury done to the caufe ol
truth is neverthelefs the fame ; nor can fuch
an error be accounted fo venial a one, in a
perfon who prefumptuouily undertook to
inftruct mankind better than the Bible it-
felf, and would by his indecent cavils have

' a a 4 infi-

360

SERMON VII.

inllnuated, that there is no utility in a branch
ot fcience, of which he was himfelf inex-
cufably ignorant, and which alone could
have enabled us to detect (as has been the
cafe in many inftances) the falfehood of his
alfertions, and the fophittry of his argu¬
ments.

Again, nothing is more eaty than to per-
fuade the ignorant, that Learning and Criti-
cifm are unnecelTary to the due underltand-
ing of the Bible; and yet, upon the very
pretence of fuperior learning and wifdom,
to pals upon them a new fenfe for every
fcriptural term that may be called in quef-
tion . A knowledge of the dead languages
mult neceflarily be of the molt eflential ufe,
where the living and vernacular tongues,
into which they may have been tranllated,
are thus liable to perverlion and milrepre-
fentation. It is fcarcely pollible to conceive,
that any unlettered Chriltian could mifin-
terpret the received verlion of the New Tef-

b See t'1e JVth Part of Edwards's Prefervatrve again ft Soci-
mamftn ; his account of the figurative mode of interpreting
Scripture, reforted to by the Socinians, and their great abufe
of Scriptural terms.

tament.

SERMON VII.

361

lament, in regard to the important dodrines
of redemption and atonement by the blood
of Chrift ; efpecially when he had been in
the habit of hearing or reading the ancient
accounts of the Jewilh facrifices, and the
Apoftle’s comparifon of the Chriftian obla¬
tion, in the Epiftle to the Hebrews. But
when men will come forward to allure them,
that the redemption and atonement they
there read of do by no means lignify re¬
demption and atonement by the blood of
Chrilt, as a facrifice for the fins of the whole
world ; and that not only the Greek terms
for thofe expreflions, but the Hebrew, from
which they were regularly derived, or by
W’hich they mult at all events be explained %
mean otherwife ; and that neither the an¬
cient Hebrew or Chriitian writers had anv
idea of fuch an atonement for fin ; how
would the truth fuffer, if there were not
fome perfons to be found, competently
fkilled in thofe languages, to inveftigate the
original meaning and defign of the facred
writers, as well as of the Chriftian Fathers

f See Magee on the term kaaorlcc, in the 27th note to his
fir ft Sermon on Atonement .

and

SERMON VII.

362

and Jewifh Rabbis ; and to certify the un¬
learned, that the common interpretation and
fenfe of thofe expreflions are what fhould
be received, and fuch as may be fafely relied
on ; and that they were fo ufed and under-
ftood by the very writers cited and referred
to ! I am not merely fuppofing a cafe that

might happen ; the cafe really has hap¬
pened ; and I think I may with confidence
refer at once to the valuable works of Bull,
Stilling fleet, Leflie, Edwards, as well as of
our own cotemporaries Horfley and Magee,
for fuch proofs of ignorance or prevarica¬
tion, or both, on the part of certain expoji-
tors of the Scriptures, as muft amount to a
politive demonftration of the cafe. (3)

Who could ever fuppofe, that when our
Saviour is laid to have been made man, to
have been made flejh, to have taken our na¬
ture upon him, to have been born of a virgin,
and fo forth, that the birth and fubfiftence
of a mere human creature was intended?
Are thofe who have been taught to believe
in the preexiftence and divinity of our Sa¬
viour, to be robbed of their faith by the
vain afliirance, that thefe expreflions are
idiomatical,and not deligned to exprefs more,

than

SERMON VII. 363

<•

than that our Lord was born into the world
like all other human beings d ?

But indeed without the advantages of fo¬
lk! Learning and found Criticifm, to coun¬
teract and expofe the ignorance or prefump-
tion of modern Deifts, it is not the character
of our blelTed Lord only that may be mifre-
p refen ted, but his very exijlence may be
brought into queltion. It has been aflerted
in times part, that the greateft infidel that
ever lived had never pretended to disbelieve
that there was luch a perfon as our Saviour
Chrifi: e : this was referved for more modem
times ; for our own boafted times of Reafon
and knowledge. A foreign writer f, very
popular, and ftill I believe living, has ven¬
tured to aflert, that the exiftence of Jefus is
no better proved than that of OJiris , or Her¬
cules , F6t, or Bedou; and attempts are made,
by a long criticifm on the name of Chrifi ,
to perfuade us, that our Saviour was no

d See in Bifbop Horjley s Trails his IVth Letter to Dr. Pri,efl>
ley, and the Firft Supplemental Difqmfition.

e See Jenkins Rcafonablenefs of Chrijlianity , Part iv. ch. 2.
and Leland's View of Deijlical Writers , 5th edit. vol. ii. 365.

f See the Notes to M. Volney s Ruins cr Revolutions of Em¬
pires 5 and Note (4) at the end of this Difcourfe.

other

36 4

SERMON VII.

other than the Indian Vifchenoii g; that the
Hindu and Chriftian Trinities are identical;
and that the whole of Chriftianity is derived
from the books of the Mithriacs, and is
capable of being refolved into an idolatrous
worfhip of the vifible Fountain of Light.
He even cites the Chriftian Fathers in proof
of this, and Tertullian in particular, whom
he makes to fay, that “ many fuppofe, with
“ greater probability , that the Sun is our
“ God ; and they refer us to the religion of
“ the Perfians.” But when Tertullian is
allowed to fpeak for himfelf, fo far from
countenancing any fuch opinion, we find him
exprefsly pointing out the origin of their
error and miflake ; which was, that the
Chriftians prayed to the Eqft, and kept Sun¬
day facred; Diem Solis . All his arguments
to prove our Saviour to have been the vi-
fionary Deity of India, turn on the etymo¬
logy of the Greek title given to our Saviour,
which he traces through the Sanfcrit, He¬
brew, Arabic, and even Spanifh ; wholly re-
gardlefs all the while of St . John s etymo-
logy °f the title, and of its intimate and

s I life M. Volney’s fpelling.

SERMON VII.

365

unqueftionable connexion with the Hebrew
; wholly regardlefs of his own favourite
authority, Tertullian’s exprefs allufion to its
proper and acknowledged fignification, in
his Treatife againft Praxeas ; wholly regard¬
lefs of his open appeal to the public records
of Rome, in atteftation of the birth , death ,
and refurre&ion ot our Lord(4).

One fuch inftance out of the very many
that might be adduced, if the time would
ferve, of the great abufe of Criticifm for the
purpofes of infidelity, may, I hope, be fuffi-
cient, not only to vindicate the ufe and im¬
portance of found Learning, in tliefe days,
and efpecially of the knowledge of the dead
languages ; but to prove, that there never
was a time when they were more indifpenf-
ably necefiary to the caufe of truth in ge¬
neral. For whether the Bible be authentic
or not, whether it be the work of man, or
the word of God, it mult equally merit to
be prote&ed from fuch milreprefentation
and abufe, fuch grofs perverfion, and fuch
freaks of fancy.

But found Criticifm is not only particu¬
larly wanted at prefent to fecure us from
the wanton attacks of Infidels ; but for the

366

SERMON VIE

purpofe of maintaining and enforcing, even
among Chriltians, the moll important and
peculiar doctrines of the Gofpel. That of
atonement in particular is fiill difputed, and
every attempt made to explain away the
molt obvious palfages that can be held to
bear the fmalleft allulion to it ; though if
ever one event was explanatory of another,
if any two incidents may be faid to be con¬
nected with each other in the way of type
and antitype, of fhadow and fubitance, fure-
!y it may be infilled on, that the death of
Chrift, and the Jewilh facrifices under the
law of Mofes, were exadly fo related to
each other : nor can I think it poffible for
any truly candid, ingenuous, and unpreju¬
diced perfon to deny the refemblance and
analogy traced out at large by the Author of
the Epiltle to the Hebrews h. If the blood
ot Chrift had no atoning virtue, if his death
was not ftridly facrificia], what are we to
underhand by the ninth and tenth chapters
of that argumentative and molt inltrudivc
Epiltle ? The expreffions are fo clearly il-

* See alfo the references in the 27th note to the firft of Dr.
Magees Sermons on Atonement , p. 142.

lucrative

SERMON VII.

367

lucrative of all that we could poffibly con¬
ceive of atonement and redemption through
the blood of Chrift, that if attempts had not
repeatedly been made to explain away their
literal meaning and genuine fenfe, by the
molt unwarrantable explications of them,
one could fcarcely fuppofe it poffible, that
the cafe could admit of a doubt1. But
thefe expofitors, when Criticifm fails them,
have alfo their recourfe to Reqfon ; and we
are afiailed with demands, which we are
certainly under no obligation to anfwer or
regard. Human Reafon, admitted as a judge
on fuch a fubject, will, no doubt, find much
to object to ; for fin cannot be too eafily
pardonable, nor God too unconditionally
merciful, for her purpofesk. She will al-

5 “ That Chrift fuffered and died as an atonement for the
“ fins of mankind, is a dodtrine fo conftantly and fo ftrongly
“ enforced through every part of the New Teftament, that
<e whoever will ferioufiy perufe thofe writings, and deny that
“ it is there, may with as much reafon and truth, after reading
“ the works of Thucydides and Livy, aflfert, that in them no
ft mention is made of any fadts relative to the hifiories of
“ Greece and Rome.” Soamejenyns s Internal Evidence, p. 29.

k Mr. Paine confefles, that he thinks it is man’s greatefi:
(< confolation to believe, that he Jiands in no need of rede?np-

ways

SERMON VII.

36S

ways fancy fhe renders God honour by every
deduction the can make from the apparatus
of redemption. She will have no blood to
be fhed by the decree of God ; the will not
have the innocent to fuffer for the guilty ;
ihe will not have God to require atonement,
or man to need it. But all a priori judg¬
ment of the cafe is fuperfeded. We may
not reafon as to what might have been,
when the Scriptures are admitted to be the
word of God ; it is our part only to enquire
what has been 1 ; -to examine deeply and mi¬
nutely into the hiftory of facrifices, the
Jewifh above all; to take the account of our
Saviour’s miniftry from the written records
of it, from his own declarations therein
tranfmitted to us ; and to weigh well the
moil extraordinary correfpondency of doc-

cl 1 ^ 1 o n is a Divine Revelation, of the
evidences ot the truth ot which right Ecajon is to jud°'e.
Ihe difference between the Socimans and our Churches on
this article feerns to be this : we apply reafoning to the evi-
“ d*nces of Revelation, and they to all the dodfrines of it. Ac¬
cording to us, Reafon has done its office when it ha? ob¬
tained evidence, that God /peaks : according to them, Reafon
“ 1S to reie& what is fpoken, if it cannot comprehend it.” See
Notes to Claudes EJ/ay on the Compofitieu of a Sermon, vol. r.

*53-

trine

SERMON VII. 369

trine on this point, to be found in the two
covenants.

This is not a queftion now determinable
by any fpeculative views of the attributes
of God, or the condition of man. It is a
queftion, that has been before the world
from its firft creation. To be determined
with precifion, when the moft obvious fenfe
of Scripture is difputed> it requires a deep
infight into the hiftory and antiquities of the
moft remarkable people that ever lived on
the face of the earth : it requires a moft cri¬
tical knowledge of the feveral languages in
which the Scriptures were firft written ; not
merely to afcertain the dodtrine faid to be
contained therein, for without perverfion it
is plain enough ; but to be able to detedt
and expofe the various mifinterpretations,
which have been put upon the feveral terms
applied to this great dodtrine, as well as
upon the feveral cuftoms and ceremonies
connedted therewith : it requires a capacity
of examining not only into the opinions of
the ancient Fathers of the Chriftian Church,
but into thofe of the ancient Jews alfo ; for
ah thefe have been fummoned to give their

b b tefti-

37o SERMON VII.

teftimony, but often irl a moft unjuftifiable
manner.

I have enumerated thefe feveral requisites
for the due underftanding and decilion of
this particular point of controverfy, not only
to evince the'abfolute neceftity of real Learn¬
ing and juft Criticifm, but to fliew, that fo
far from our having reafon to apprehend
any ill effects from the advancement of
knowledge, in regard to fuch queftions,
we have certainly much more reafon to
complain of a great want and deficiency
either of learning or honefty, in many who
have of late rejected thefe dodtrines without
due enquiry, or attempted to explain them
without a proper attention to the merits of
the cafe ; who have been convidted upon evi¬
dence the moft clear, and proofs the moft po-
fitive, either of ignorance as to the exiftence
of ancient authorities, or prevarication in the
ufe of them.

It would appear to be peculiarly provi¬
dential, and may probably therefore enter
into the very plan of divine Providence, that
where things are at all capable of decifion
by found Criticifm, there has never been

wanting

SERMON VII.

37i

wanting a conftant fucceflion of learned
men, duly qualified to controvert the many
bold and dogmatical aflertions, by which
the ignorant are in conftant danger of be¬
ing confounded and milled . If we had
no power of examining into the real merit
of fuch after t ions, we fliould be at this mo¬
ment compelled to believe, that “ the doc -
“ trines of Atonement, Incarnation, and the
“ Trinity, have no more foundation in the
“ Scriptures than the do Urines of tranfnb -
“ Jiantiat ion or trait f migration™ f that “there
“ are very few texts that even feem to aftert
“ the pre-exiftence of Chrift and that “on
“ a full review of the religions of all nations,
“ ancient and modern, we fliould find them
“ utterly deftitute of any thing like a doc-
“ trine of proper atonement n.” Aflertions
more completely unfounded could fcarcely
liave entered into the mind of man ; for in

m See Priejilcy s Anfiver to Paine. It has been well obferved,
that “ the do6lrines of redemption and grace appear very evi-
“ dently to deijlical writers to be the doctrines of the Bible,
“ though fome nominal Chriftians cannot find them there.”
See The Age of Infidelity , Part I. 62. Mr. Paine could find
them there, though Dr. Prieftley could not.

n See note (3).

B 1) 2

regard

SERMON VII.

372

regard only to the latter, it is, in politive
contradiction to what has been alleged, ca¬
pable of the molt certain proof, that all na¬
tions whatfoever before Chrift, Heathens as
well as Jews, univerfally held, that the dif-
pleafure of an offended Deity was to be
averted by the facrifice of an animal : nor
are any of the other aflertions lefs open to
confutation, as has been amply fhewn, by a
learned Profeffor in a lifter Univerfitv, in a
work which may well encourage us to hope,
that aflertions will never again be received
as proofs, nor fophiftry ever prevail over real
learning

Connected with this doCtrine of atone¬
ment is that moft important doCtrine of all,
the Trinity . How much the human Reafon
has revolted againft this doCtrine, I need not
lay. She has thought herfelf competent
entirely to fet this alide, and to treat its de¬
fenders with the moft ignominious con¬
tempt. If this doCtrine had been entirely of
man’s invention, they might be allowed, in
diflenting from it, to fufpeCt the authors ot

0 Magee s Difcourfes on the Scriptural Doctrines of Atonement
and Sacrifice- London, i8or.

SERMON VII,

373

it of fome affectation of myftery, and they
might with the utmoft reafon be jealous of
admitting any affumed equality with the
fupreme Father of heaven. But as a theo¬
logical queftion, and it cannot be any thing
elfe, this alfo now admits of no a priori
judgment. None have any right to enquire
of us, whether three perfons may fubfift in
the unity of one eflence, as a merely lpecu-
lative doctrine: but as thev, who from the
firft have held this doctrine, have afferted,
that they find it in the Scriptures, the whole
muff depend on the interpretation of certain
paffages there : and as the appeal is open,
it is abfurd to prefume, that there is no
foundation whatever for fuch a doctrine to
be dilcovered in the words of Scripture ; for
who could poflibly be fo fenfelefs as to fay
fuch a doctrine was to be difcovered there,
unlefs they felt affured in their own minds,
that the Scripture would, upon reference, be
found to fupport them ? I know nothing
upon the face of the earth that could firft
have induced men to fay, they believed in
one God and a Trinity of Perfons, if they
regarded thefe twro parts of their creed as

b b 3 incom-

374

SERMON VII.

incompatible p; I . know nothing that could
have induced the believers in one God to
worfhip Chrift and the Holy Spirit, un-
lefs they believed them in fome manner
or other to be co-equal, and co-exift-
ent q.

The modern Unitarians, as they perfift
in calling themfelves, ftill continue to aflert,
that the mere humanity of Chrift is the clear
and indif put able do Brine of the New Tefta -
ment \ Surely then they muft acknowledge
it to be ftrange, that fome of thofe, whom
they moll boaft of, as advocates for the
Unity, and adverfe to the doctrine of Chrift’s
Divinity, fhould yet have given a Trinitarian
meaning to molt of the paflages infilled on ;
or a meaning certainly incompatible with
real manhood ; and that they fhould have
found expreflions in the Golpel leading
them to imagine that “ prayer and invoca-

p “ It the Scripture had not told us of Three in heaven, we
“ had never fpoke of a Trinity.” Lejlie.

q Socinus acknowledged Chrift to be an objedt of prayer, as
being exalted to the dignity and majefty of a true God, ( Deus
Vtrus,) in reward of his obedience and fufferings.

r See Priejlley s Hi/lory of Corruptions, vol. i. p. 6.

<( tion

SERMON VII. 375

i€ tion were due to Chrift s;” — “ that he had
“ a pre-exiftence;” — “ that the Divinity was
“ united to him, compofing, together with
“ his human foul and body, one Chrift ;” — -
and that this Divinity was “ the Supreme
“ Being and yet thefe, without doubt,
were feverally the tenets of Arius, Socinus,
Erafmus, Grotius, Petavius, Epifcopius, San-
dius, Clarke, and Tucker1; all of whom are
claimed at leaft by the Unitarians of the
prefent day, as the friends of their party (5),
Shall we then be told, that the doctrines of
Chrift’ s pre-exiftence, divinity, and incarna¬
tion, have no better foundations in Scrip¬
ture, than thofe of tranfubftantiation and
tranfmigration ? When our Saviour is repre-
fented as expreffing himfelf fo before the

8 See the extracts from the Racovian Catechifm in the ift vol.
of Lejlie , p. 219.

1 Arius’s opinions are well known. Socinus complains of his
being thought to deny Chrift s being a true God 5 iC Quafi nos
Chriftum verum Deum effe negamus , quod tamen a nobis non
et fit.” Op. tom. ii. p. 645* See alfo Edwards s Prefervativc
againjl Socinianifni , Difc. I. pp. 9, 10. Erafmus in his Para -
phrafe on John i. 1. calls Chrift ex Deo vero , Deus veras, and
much more to the fame purpofe. For the tenets of Grotius,
Petavius, Epifcopius, and Sandius, fee Lejlie s IVth Dialogue of
bis Socman Controverjy : of Clarke and Tucker, fee note (5).

b b 4 whole

SERMON VII.

376

whole Sanhedrim affembled in council u, as
that the Jews conceived he made himfelf
equal with God, we may well conceive the
expieffion recorded had this diredl purport ;
and we may furely be excufed for thinking
the fame ; efpecially as our Saviour’s own
explanation, recorded by the fame Evangel iff,
does not tend to convict them of an error
in judgment. When he more openly de¬
clared, equally to the furprife and aftonifh-
ment of the Jews, that He and the Father
weie One, and they drew the fame inference
they had done before ; namely, that he had
made himfelf God, by this declaration ; is it
to be confidered as a mere random, irra¬
tional, unfounded interpretation, that we put
upon the lame words, efpecially when, as in
the former cafe, our Saviour did not deny
the propriety of the inference they had
drawn (6) ? The queftion has been rendered
intiicate by the numerous difcuffions it has
undergone: when our Saviour fpoke him¬
felf to the point, he was fo intelligible to
the Jews, that they would have ftoned him
for blafphemy. This makes the queftion of

“ S zz Doddridge qu John v. 17, Family Expofitcr, fea. 47.

the

SERMON VII.

377

the Trinity a molt awful and important one ;
for the denial of it evidently tends to fix
the charge of blafphemy on Chrift. And
this confideration lhould be uppermoft in
the minds of all thofe who engage in fuch.
enquiries.

Let them not fancy they are under any
obligation to explain the Trinity, but under
the deepell and moft indifpenfable obliga¬
tion to confider the true extent of our Sa¬
viour’s meaning, when he claimed, in the pre¬
fence of the Jews, this unity with the Fa¬
ther. Let them not fuffer themfelves to be
led too far in the inveftigation of this moll:
important queftion. Thofe who will ftill
infill upon its being a contradiction, to ac¬
knowledge a Trinity in unity, mull be con¬
tented with the anfwer provided for us in
the Creed which goes by the name of Atha-
nafius. That was written, whoever was
the author, with a far better defign than is
generally imputed to it : it was in all likeli¬
hood intended not only to meet particular
herefies and errors, but to repel the charge of
Tritheifm , alleged againft the true believers.
It was drawn up, no doubt, to fliew, that
they, who, in their acknowledgement of Fa¬
ther ,

378

SERMON VIE

tlier , nwt/ iLo/z/ Ghojl , either confounded

the perfons, or divided the fubftance, dif¬
fered effentially from the true believers; and
therefore that the latter of courfe were not
obnoxious to any fuch charges : and as
both thefe errors gave a handle to unbe¬
lievers, to accufe them of fuch “ damnable
“ herefies,” (to ufe St. Peter’s own terms,)
as either the denying the Lord that bought
them, or of giving way to idolatry, the
damnatory claufes, as they are called, what¬
ever was their original object, mull be held
to exprefs the horror with which fuch errors
were viewed by the true believer, and the
extreme danger of them. Thefe may ffill
therefore ferve to fhew, that the Trinitarians,
in acknowledging the Divinity of Chrift,
think their doctrine grofsly mifreprefented,
whenever it is fo Hated as to imply any
thing contrary to the divine Unity ; any¬
thing bordering upon idolatry on the one
hand, or a denial of Chrilf on the other (7):
charges continually brought againft them,
and in terms that thould preclude all fur¬
ther argument, if they were but true. For if
there are really any perfons capable of aflert-
ing, as it has been more than once alleged,

that

SERMON VII.

379

that “ there are three Creators, and yet but
“ one Creator'',' fuch men need never be ar¬
gued with; the proof of fuch an affertion
would be entirely fufficient to preclude all rea-
foning upon the fubjcct (8) . But after having
faid, as the Creed alluded to does fay, “that
“ the Godhead of the Father, of the Son,
“ and of the Holy Ghoft, is One to affirm
further, that “ the Father is God, the Son is
“ God, and the Holy Ghoft is God,’’ is only
to exprefs the fame thing differently, which
it is a matter of abfolute neceffity to do,
where wc are at all obliged to fliew, in
what manner we believe three to agree in
one. We have been forced, in this and
many other inftances, into a fort of a priori
reafoning concerning the nature and moral
government of God; which, if left to herfelf,
the Church would always with humility de¬
clined “ For,” as a very able writer obferves

x Lindfey on the Two Creations , in the 2d vol. of the Theologi¬
cal Repofitory.

„ fl \ « _ \ » \ >/ ' V ~ ^ * f

y Ort p.sv 0 Qeoq 1 nov tovto 7 nrtvt to os 7ru;, p.v) 7roKvir^cc.yp.o-

vsC (y,Tuv yelp tvpyjo’sig. Cyt'ill. TheroJ. Catech. xi.

yevva. tov vibv b ©to;, « tto Xv7rpxyp.ovu. K.at 7 ruq sx.7rspt.7re1 to
7 rvsvp.cc opoiccq ov Tro'KvTrpxypovu' a,Xhcc Trirevv oti y.ctl vioq ysvvccTai
uppviTuq xct) xccl to 7rvtvp.cc. ixTropsvsTUi ccppvjTUi xoci

Athanafii Dial. I. edit. p. 40. Stephan.

SERMON VII.

3S0

on another occalion, “ what God could or
“ could not have done it prefumes not to
“ pronounce ; what God declares he has
n done, that merely it afferts ; and on his
“ exprefs word alone it is founded. But it
“ is to be remembered,” he proceeds to re¬
mark, <c that on this, and on many other
“ occalions, that a priori reafoning, which fo
t( frequently mifleads thofe who objeft to
<c the doctrines of our Church, is imputed
“ by them to us. Not being themfelves in
f‘ the habit of bowing with humble reve-
t( rence to the facred word, they conlider
■* not that we fpeak merely its fuggejlions ;

and that, if we do at any time philofo-
“ phize, it is but to follow, not to lead, the
“ meaning of Scripture.” And this was
the intention, no doubt, of the ancient
Fathers of the Church, whofe illuftrations
of their dodtrine have been lately fo offici-
oufly brought forward to prove7, not the
infufficiency of human Reafon to explain a
divine myftery, but that a divine myftery
incapable of being adequately explained,
and accounted for by human Reafon, is

7 See Priefilcy s Early Opinions concerning Chrlft.%

therefore

SERMON VII.

381

therefore impoffible : a conclullon which
has been fo often and fo effectually refuted,
as no longer to deferve our notice. The
ancient Fathers never meant to inform us
what the Trinity really was a, but only how
it might in fome degree be illuftrated ; and,
for this end, they certainly difcovered many
fimilitudes, which, though not ftrictly ap¬
plicable, were fufficient to Ihew, that a
Triune fubfiftence was not, in the nature of
things, either an abfurdity or an impoffi-
bility b.

As thefe Fathers of the Chriffian Church
were frequently accufed of having formed
their notions of the Trinity on the model
of the Platonic Triad of principles ; fo, from
what has fince been difcovered of a Trinity

* ET$ Gioq Ylurvip, eT? Kvgios, a povoyevyis avrS Y io$, ev to Hveof/.a to
otyi ovf 0 wctpax^rTfc?. Kai avr ecpxeg r,p7v a l^evoti ruvra.' (pvavv 8s, 53
vncruaiv py 7 To^virpccyponi' si yap hv ysy(>ct[Au.svc v, Iheyopuv' x ysyga-
vrTUi, (Ay ToXj u^auy.sv' avTa^xsc vip/Av si8svatt irpo? aulr.pioiv, oti sr* Ucciyjg,

y.cti Y lo;, xu) ay\ov TIvtvfAx. Cyrill. Hicrof. Catech. xvi.

b See Hunting ford on the Trinity, §. xv. Bifhop Beveridge is
cenfured for fuch fimilitudes, in Robinfons JS’otes to Claude's Ef-
fay , vol. i. p. 17. but I think without reafon. Though all fuch
illufirations mutt be inadequate, as the Bithop of Gloucester ob-
ferves, yet there is no harm in (hewing, that in- nature, and in
human cafes, unity and multiplicity may be combined, and of¬
ten are fo.

382

SERMON VII.

in the Oriental mythologies, tome have
been of late induced, perverfely enough,
to think, and to ajfert indeed, that we derive
the doctrine entirely from thence ; and, as I
had occafion to obferve before, that the
Hindu and Chriftian Trinities are identical,
and equally fabulous. We cannot be too
particular therefore in fatisfying ourfelves,
that the Trinity is the doCtrine of the New
Tejlament , prior to all other confiderations c.
Thofe that have no veneration for the cha¬
racter of our blefled Lord, mult be left to
their own notions: but even among Infidels,

it mult be confefied, that many have been

found to bear the moll willing and the
itrongeft teltimony to the purity and per¬
fection, both of his life and doCtrine, as re-
prefented in the Gofpeld. Now it is princi¬
pally from our Saviour’s own declarations
and conduCl, that we deduce the doCtrine
ot the Trinity : we know that he fell under
the imputation of blafphemy for afluming

c How much the Platonic Trinity differs from the Chriftian,
fee Bijhop Burgefs's Sermon on the Divinity of Chrijl.

Mi. Paine profelTes the higheft refpeH for the character of
Jefus Chrift. Rouffeau’s fketch of it, in his Letter to the Arch -
oijhop of Paris , is very ftriking and very juft.

SERMON VIL 383

an equality with God, and that he did not
repel the charge by any objections made to
the interpretation put on his words; fo that
our notions of the Divinity of Chrift are not
founded on any fuch viiionary balls as a
mythological legend, or philofophical {pe¬
culation, but admit of proof from his own
perfonal declarations, attefted and interpret¬
ed by living witnefles. It cannot in any
manner be pretended, that the Grecian or
Oriental Trinities admit of any proof fo
certain and direCt. And as a previous quef-
tion, I cannot fee that we have any thing
to do with any traces of a Trinity, that may
be difcoverable either among Jews or Pa¬
gans. After having commenced our en¬
quiries with our Lord’s own declarations,
his own claim to a filial identity of nature
with God the Father, and having difcovered
in the courfe of our refearches, that however
the Evangelifts and Apottles have deferibed
him as a man, and the Prophets foretold
him as fuch, they yet alfo all agree in aferib-
ing to him the brighteit characters of Divini¬
ty ; after having taken into the account the
peculiar form of baptifm of our Lord’s own
inftitution ; then we may be well entitled

3^4

SERMON VII.

to regard every other intimation of fitch a
mode of fubfiftence in the Deity, either
among Jews or Pagans, but efpecially the
former, as a remarkable confirmation of the
Chriftian Trinity.

Whatever faint or imperfeCt revelations of
it God might have vouchsafed from the firft
creation, we are to look chiefly to the New
Teftament for an account of the perfon and
character of the Saviour of the world ; and fup-
pofing the Trinity true, the fulleli difcovery
of it might moft fitly be referved for the times
of the Gofpel : then it became as eflential
for man to know God’s method of redemp¬
tion and Sanctification, as under the Law it
had been of importance to him to have a re¬
velation of his method of creation and provi¬
dence. God forefeeing the need of fuch fur¬
ther difcoveries in time, might well vouch¬
safe foine intimation of fuch a mode of fub-^
filtehce from the earlieft times, as it would
certainly appear that he had done c. So that
in all likelihood, as has been conjectured

c See Cudwortb, b. i. ch. y Horjley s Tracts, 40 — 4^. and
his fecond Letter to Dr. Priejlley , p. 100. See alfo Lelandts View
of Deijlical Writers , Letter xxxiii. and Bjhop Hunting ford' on
the Trinity , §§. xvi. xxv. xxviii.

and

SERMON VII.

383

and afferted, revelation and tradition were
indeed the original fources whence both
Jew and Gentile, both the philofophers of
the Weft, and the mythologifts of the Eaft,
derived whatever notions they appear to have
had of a Trinity in Unity.

May the Almighty and Everlasting God,

WHO HAS GIVEN Us GRACE IN THE CON¬
FESSION of Our faith, to acknowledge
THE GLORY OF THE ETERNAL TRINITY, AND
IN THE POWER OF THE DlVINE MAJESTY TO

worship the Unity, keep us stedfast in

^ /

THIS FAITH, AND EVERMORE DEFEND US
FROM ALL ADVERSITIES !

C C

NOTES

' ?• ' ■ '• &
S ■■ . • :• . t : , ■ •

• *■ 1 •

* ' ‘

‘

■ . .. . . ■ . .

, . J .. :r:: . Wnr

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

Page 356. note (1).

Ttlh author of the Age of Reafon has ‘ventured to affure
the world , that only living languages are of rife in the ad¬
vancement of knowledge] To do Mr. Paine juftice, he
has not faid this without ftating his reafons ; which
are, “ that there is now nothing new to be learned
“ from the dead languages : all the ufeful books being
already tranflated, the languages are become ufelefs,
and the time expended in teaching and learning them
iC is wafted.” Part I. of the Age of Reafon , p. 37. But
then, to do ourf elves juftice, we mult not truft Mr.
Paine too far, when he afterts, that human language
may never be the“ vehicle of the word of God f be-
eaufe of “ the continually progreffive change, to which
“ the meaning of words is lubjeft ; the want of an
“ univerfal language, which renders tranflation necef-
46 fary ; the errors to which tranflations are again fub-
je6t ; the miftakes of copyifts and printers; together
“ with the poflibility of wilful alteration, 8cc.” Ih. p.
19. If tranflations have been capable of conveying to
us all that is ufeful in the writings of antiquity in fo
great perfe&ion, as to render the ftudy of the original
writings altogether ufelefs, then we may certainly be
faid to have the benefits of fuch an univerfal language
as Air. Paine thinks indifpenfably neceftary to a divine
.Revelation : but if tranflations are fo liable to error as
he fuppofes, and copyifts and printers l'ubje6t to mif-
take, and the originals always in danger of wilful al-
tei ations, vvhat can poftibly fecure us from luch evils,
but a critical knowledge of the original languages, and
original works, wherewith we may compare the tranf-
kuioins, and whereby we may be able to correct the

c c 3 miftakes

388

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

miftakes of copyifts and printers^ and to detect and ex-
pofe all wilful alterations ?

What an able critic Mr. Paine became, by trufting
to tran flations, and negle&ing the ufe and ftudy of the
dead languages, we may judge from his arguments
about the book of Job. It is irnpoffible to exprels the
courfe of his difcoveries in Criticifm better than in the
following few words of a very able writer who an-
fwered him; and who thus lums up his arguments :
“ The book of Job is a Hebrew trandation from an A-
rabic original ; becaufe the E nglijh trandation con-
tains four or five Greek words. ” See Age of Infideli¬
ty > Part II. 41. This is literally Mr. Paine’s argument.
After adopting the opinions of Aben-Ezra and Spinofa,
that it is a trandation into Hebrew from another lan¬
guage, he adds, <c the agronomical names, Pleiades ,
“ Orion, and Ar&urus , are Greek, and not Hebrew
“ names; and as it does not appear from any thing
“ that is to be found in the Bible, that the Jews knew
“ any thing of allronomy, or that they ftudied it, they
“ had no tranfiation for thofe names into their own lan -
“ guage ; but adopted the names as they found them
“ in the poem.” The Englifh reader, who may have
neglected the ftudy of the dead languages upon the
wife advice of Mr. Paine, (but indeed I hope he will
have found very few fuch readers.) would be furprifed
to learn, that, fo far from the Hebrews having been un¬
able to trandate thefe Greek names, the Greeks have
appeared to be much more unable to trandate the He¬
brew. For let the real fignification, or the derivation
of the terms in Job be what they may, there they cer¬
tainly are, in the original, in true Hebrew chara&ers.
Job ix. 9. nD'D, ^PD, WV — and not one word do we
read of either the Pleiades, Orion , or Ar&urus ; though
in Mr. Paine’s Englifh Bible (for when he wrote the
lecond part of the Age of ReaJ'on he had one, and not
before) no doubt he found the names as he writes
them. But whoever was the author of the Greek ver-
fion of the book of Job, he certainly knew fo little
which particular conftellations were meant, that in the
two paftages where they are mentioned, he renders W#
in the firft by rUsiafot, but in the fecond by 'Eo-Apov :
and the author of the Greek verfion of Amos, (ch. v.

ver. §.)

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

389

ver. 8.) where two of the fame conftellations are again
mentioned in the original, fairly leaves them out ; as if
he totally wanted iome correfpondent Greek terms.
Nor indeed is the author of the Vulgate more uniform
than the author of the Greek verfion, as to : he has
Ardurum in the firft inftance, and Vefperum in the laft :
and as to the term rtD'D, he renders it differently in
three different places. Mr. Paine’s favourite commen¬
tator Aben-Ezra allowed no place at all for the Pleia¬
des, but was for fubftituting the Hyades in their dead ;
another clufter of ftars in the Bull. This is more upon
the fubj e£t, perhaps, than the cafe required ; though
Mr. Paine’s obje£t was no lefs than, by this rare piece
of critieifm, to rob the Bible of the book of Job ; and
merely for this reafon ; that he thought it too good to
be in fuch company. In his opinion it is deiftical; but
how Job himfelf could be accounted a Deift I know
not, who was c( continually ” making fin-offerings for
his family, left fome of his many (( fons Jbould have Jin-
“ ned in their hearts which certainly favours a good
deal of an inftituted method of atonement. Job i. 5.
and xlii. 7.8. See Magee's fiecond Sermon on Atonement ,
and Note 23. p. 136. I fhall advert to one more criti-
cifm of Mr. Paine’s, fuggefted by another ftiort remark
of the fame able writer already referred to.

Mr. Paine infifts upon it, in the fecond part of the
Age of Reafon, p. 6. that Mofes cannot be confidered
as the author of the Pentateuch, without rendering
him truly ridiculous and abfurd : for in the xiith chap¬
ter of Numbers, ver. 3. it is faid, ce Now the man Mo-
<c fes was very meek above all the men which were on
“ the face of the earth.” cf If Mofes faid this of him-
“ felf,” fays Mr. Paine, “ inftead of being the meekeft
“ of men, he was one of the moft vain and arrogant of
“ coxcombs.” This is an old obje&ion, as Indeed all
Mr, Paine’s are , without exception. Now the author of
the Age of Infidelity fuggefts, from the origin of the
term py, that this meeknefs of Mofes was not fo much
a virtue as a weaknefs ; and I muft confefs I think he
is right : and though a dead language is here of ufe to
illuftrate the point, yet I think our own living lan¬
guage would fupply an eafy argument againft Mr.
Paine. There can be no doubt, from the context, that

c c 3 th®

39°

NOTES TO SERMON VII,

the meeknefs here attributed to Mofes had a reference
to the refen tment of wrongs. Now in the cl affifi cation
of the paffions, fome are allowed to be purely defen -
five, and defigned for the fecurity of the individual.
On opening then the firft book of morals that falls in
my way, I read, that 44 if thefe paffions are lb weak as
£t to prove infufficient for their end, as well as if they

are lo ftrong as to carry us beyond it, in both cafes
44 they are unfit to anfwer their original defign ; and
44 therefore are in an unfound and unnatural hate.” See
Profefifior Fergufon’s Elements of Moral Philofophy. I ap¬
prehend therefore, that the meeknefs of Mofes would
in this particular inftance rather imply that diffidence,
which is oppofed, not fo much to haughtinefs and
pride, as to that refentment of injuries, which is fome-
times both becoming and neceflary. And if we con-
fult the whole paffiage, we fhall, I think, certainly con¬
clude, that the interpofition of the Deity upon the oc-
cafion was exprefsly connected with the weaknefs and
unreafonable diffidence of his Prophet. See verfes 4 and
14. It is thus that Cicero, where he recommends cle¬
mency, meeknefs , and gentlenefs of fpirit, as virtues be¬
coming a ftatefman, is particularly careful to add, that
though meeknefs and clemency be laudable virtues,
yet no further than as they leave room for a juft feveri-
whenever the occafions of the public require it.
44 Et tamen ita probanda eft manfuetudo et dementia , ut
44 adbibeatury reipublicee caufa , feveritas, fine qua admi-
44 nftrari civitas non poteftP De Officiis, lib. i. c. 25.
Upon which Graevius has a note very applicable to the
cafe of Mofes. And Muretus has a good remark : 44 Ut
44 morofitas odium, ita nimia fiacilitas contemtum pa-
44 rit.” See Verburgius’s edit. Note 70. p. 3489.

I do not mean to deny, that meeknefs is allied to
many virtues, and to fome particularly confpicuous in
the character of Mofes; but in the paffiage alluded to,
though without reference to the Hebrew it would
feem as if an a6t of weaknefs had been moft in the
contemplation of the writer ; y^et a knowledge of the
original muft be neceffary to determine this.

So tar then from agreeing with Mr. Paine in the
conclufion he draws, and which he has expreffied fo
Imartly in the following words; 44 The author is with-

44 out

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

39*

r<r out credit, becaufe, to boaft of meeknefs is the re-
ee verfe of meeknefs, and is a lie in fentiment;” I fhould
argue, that to acknowledge a weaknefs is a virtue , and
therefore Mofes was meek both in the good and bad
fenfe of the term ; and in this particular inftance, per¬
haps, fuperlatively fo. For what was the real cafe ?
Aaron and Miriam were difputing his divine mijjion ; of
which if Mofes had been duly fenfible, he fhould have
fuffered no private affections to incline him to compro-
mife fo great an infult to the prophet of God : but
though he was therefore blameworthy, for fuch an ill-
judged lenity and diffidence, and even thereby as it
were confederate with Aaron and Miriam, as verfes 4
and 14 would imply; yet, considering the near rela-
tionffiip of the offenders to him, it was certainly an
amiable weaknefs, and, bad not the honour of God, and
the future authority of his Prophet, been fo immediately
concerned, no doubt a venial one. After all, it is in a
parenthejis , and therefore might poffibly have been add¬
ed by way of note, fuch having been conjeCtured to
have been the original way of writing notes; f be Jge
of Infidelity, p. 17 : and if fo, whether it were a virtue
or a weaknefs, Mofes would have nothing to do with
it.

In neither of the cafes above can we fay, that we
have been mified by the tranflators. If they have mif-
taken the particular conftellations alluded to in the firfl
cafe, it is of no fort of moment; for if they were con-
ffellations, (which is not generally admitted, fee Park-
hurfi under ity II. and Bates’s Crit . Heb.) whether He¬
brew, Arabic, Grecian, or Englifh, they are only men¬
tioned to fet forth the glory of God. In the laft cafe,
whatever idea we attach to the term meeknefs, we
cannot be wrong in fuppofing it to have been a parti¬
cular trait in the character of Mofes : but as it certain¬
ly admits of two fenfes, or at lead the virtue carried
to excels may become a weaknels, like many others,
we cannot pretend to determine that Mofes meant to
loafi, even if he himfelf was the very author of the
words.

But where tranflators may not miflead, interpreters
may ; and if the dead languages, Learning, and Criti-
cil'm were to be given up, I am confident we fhould

c c 4 loon

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

591

foon know as little of the word of man , in times pall,
as of the word of God. For let us fuppofe the Bible
to be only an ancient book, but to contain things ufe-
ful ; and let us further imagine Mr. Paine to be per-
fuaded, that the Englifh tranflation was fufficient to
communicate to him all that it was neceffary for him
to know of the Bible, and therefore that the Hebrew
might be laid afide : now without dreaming of any
fuch arguments and objections as Mr. Paine might in
time to come choofe to invent, the tranilators might
reafonably have fubflituted the modern names of the
moft confpicuous conftellations, for the three unintelli¬
gible terms, (for they are fo in a great meafure,) which
occur in the original palfages of the book of Job.

But how would Mr. Paine himfelf be confounded,
(at leaft one would think it impoffible it fhould be
otherwife,) jf, pretending to criticife the Bible, and to
advance objections, which, according to his own ex-
preffions, i( no Bible believer, though writing at his
“ eafe, and with a library of church books about him,
S( fhould be able to refute, ” (fee the Preface to the fe-
cond part of the Age of Reafon ,) he fhould, relying
upon the tranflation, infill upon a difficulty in the He¬
brew original, from which it fhould be found, upon
examination, the Hebrew original was totally free ?

If tranflations are fo correCt as entirely to fuperfede
the life and ftudy of the dead languages, which is what
Mr. Paine infills upon in one place, then fuch tranfla¬
tions fhould be implicitly relied on : but if tranflations
are liable to be fo faulty and erroneous, as he alto
ilrongly infiits in another place, then no arguments
fhould be deduced from them, but fuch as the originals
would ferve to fupport, as well as the tranflations. Mr.
Paine confefles his own ignorance of the Hebrew lan¬
guage, (p. 54. Part II. of the Age of Reafon,) and yet
pretends to inflruCt us in the ufe of Hebrew terms ;
lo much fo, that in endeavouring to deprive us of all
faith in the Hebrew Prophets, after infilling upon it,
that a Prophet, a Poet, and a Mufician, were fynoni-
mous, when be undertakes to determine the meaning
and import of the older term seer, for want of He-
hi eg), he fairly refers us from the Fnglfb to the French :
intimating pretty plainly, that he conceives it to have

fignified

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

393

fignified no more than a wizard ; though in the He¬
brew there is a diftin6t term for the latter, and they are
particularly enumerated (Deut. xviii. io, n.) among
the abominations of the heathens . This is the more
particular, becaufe he pretends alfo, that the Jewidi
Prophets were not raifed to a higher rank than that of
wizards, but through the fraud of the Chrijiian Church,
and the ignorance and fuperftition of modern times :
whereas nothing can be more diftinguifhed, in the Old
Te (lament, than the Prophets of God, and the wizards
of the Gentiles. For in the fame chapter of Deutero¬
nomy already referred to, where wizards are denounced
as among the heathen abominations, punifhments are
awarded to thofe who will not liilen to and obey the
Prophets of God. Nay, would he but have conde-
lcended to let the Bible {peak for itfelf, which he never
does, he would alfo have found, from the fame chapter,
that it was exprefsly to reftrain the Jews from follow¬
ing after wizards and necromancers, and fuch fort of
“ conjuring, drolling gentry,” that the prophetical of¬
fice was firth eftablifhed : upon which head Origen ar¬
gues admirably againft Celfus, that it was a matter of
abfolute neceffity that they fhould have Prophets ;
“ For,” faith he, u it being written in their law, that
li the Gentiles hearkened unto oracles and divinations ,
“ but God would not fuffer it to be fo among them,
“ it prefently follows, Deut. xviii. 15. A Prophet will
the Lord thy God raife up from the midjl of thee , 8cc.
“ Therefore,” fays Origen, 66 when the nations round
“ about them had their oracles and feveral ways of di-
*c vination, fire 01a xXydovovv, sirs 5V olxvoov, elite 5V ooyiStov,
elre Si e yyocrp lyvhcov, elre di) 01 a. rcvv rf $rutiKr,v ditocyfeX-
<( XofjJvivv, elre xali Sid XocXSctloev yeve^AictAoyovvrcov,) all
“ which were flridlly prohibited among the Jews ; if
(c the Jews had had no way of foreknowing things to
cc come, it had been almoll impofiible, conlidering the
“ great curiolity of human nature, to have kept them
“ from defpifing the Law of Mofes, and apoftatizing to
(C the heathen oracles, or fetting up fomething like
u them among themfelves.” Contra Celf lib. i. p. 28.
edit. Cantab. See alfo Notes to Sermon V.

Mr. Paine tells us, indeed, that neither Seer nor Pro¬
phet ventured to meddle with anv concerns, but thofe
«** y

394

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

of the times then pafling; and that their prophecyings
1 1 ad never any reference to any dijlant future time.
This is eafily laid by Mr. Paine, and, according to his
mode of Criticifm , eafily proved. The very remarkable
prophecy of Ifaiah concerning Cyrus is divided be¬
tween the xlivth and xlvth chapters, as is well known.
In the former part the rebuilding of Jerufalem only is
mentioned ; in the latter the conquefts of Cyrus are
foretold ; and the circum fiance of his being named in
the prophecy fo many years before its accomplifhment,
is exprefsly mentioned as the pledge of its truth. All
this latter part Mr. Paine totally pafles over; and, from
the lafl verfe of the xlivth chapter, takes occafion to
declaim againfl cc the audacity of the Church , and priejl-
“ ly ignorance ” for impofing this book upon the world
as the writing of Ifaiah ; when, by their own chrono¬
logy, he died one hundred and fixty-two years before
the decree of Cyrus for the rebuilding of Jerufalem
was iffued. Indeed, we muff acknowledge, that fuch
ignorance and audacity would have exceeded every
thing of the kind that we have fince read of in the
annals of the world. But Mr. Paine regards the decree
of Cyrus as authentic. Now Cyrus was certainly nei¬
ther an audacious churchman, nor an ignorant priefl ;
he was the very perfon concerned; and by all accounts,
(and it happens that we know a great deal of Cyrus
from projane hiftory,) he was too fhrewd to be eafily
impofed on, and too great to impofe upon others ; nor
was there a motive to induce him to do fo in this in-
Han ce. Cyrus himfelf then, in the very proclamation
he i(Tued upon the occafion, exprefsly acknowledges
his fenfe oi the truth of this prophecy, and adopts it as
the motive for his clemency and indulgence to the
Jews. See Ezra i. 2. See alfo Jofephus , j4.nt.Jud. lib. xi.
c. i. “ He caufed it to be proclaimed,” fays Jofephus,
throughout all A fa, on EXPOS O BAS I A EXE AEPEP

rcsi'ho'Atzf rerov eivc Cf ov ro rwv 'IcrpoLrydoav eQvog zzpo<rx.vyii‘ E
yio TOTMON I1POEITIEN ONOMA AIA TON UPOEH-

“ lilN, Xj on rov vaov arjrs oIxooop-Tjcrw |y 'lspocroAvgoig lv rij
“ yfipad This, fays Jofephus, he learnt from

the writings of Ifaiah, which had already been extant
210 years, 140 before the temple was dejlrojyed ; another

material

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

395

material circumftance, which Air. Paine totally omits.
Indeed if dead languages are no longer of any ufe, liv¬
ing languages are as little fo, while they are liable to
be fo grofsly perverted, and fo fhamefully abufed.

Page 359. note (2) .

'Nor would it be difficult to fhew at length , as a. proof
•particularly applicable , that the very writer in qiitjlion has
much aggravated a very futile charge , which he has ad¬
vanced againjl the divine authority of the Bible , by the
unwarrantable infer tion or mifconJlru6lion of one of the
very letters he mentions .] I do not defign to make this a
very ferious point of criticifm ; for by fome perhaps it
may be thought to be no better than quibbling; M. de
Voltaire’s remark, befides, having too much of levity
in it to be treated with great attention. But as his
defign was, like Mr. Paine’s, to invalidate in every way
poflible the authority of the Pentateuch, it way be w7ell
to fhew, that fuch flippancies are inimical to truth, and
that the unwary and the ignorant may be grofsly de¬
ceived by them. We fhall not, fays M. Voltaire, be
queftioned, in the day of judgment, whether we have
miflaken a Caph for a Beth , or a Yod for a Vau. Let
M. Voltaire then be more corre6t in his charges againjl
the Bible ; becaufe, if it is quite a trifle to mi flake one
Hebrew Letter for another, the truth is more in danger
of being perverted by fuch critics, than by all the
priefthood, either of the Synagogue or the Church. M.
de Voltaire has a long argument upon the twenty-three
thoufand men that fell by the hand of the children of
Levi, in the cafe of the molten calf, Exodus xxxii. 28.
M. Voltaire underftood nothing of Hebrew; how much
Greek he knew I cannot pretend to fay : but it is cer¬
tain, that, like a true catholic, he delcended as low as
Latin at leaf: for the text of his argument : for in the
Vulgate tranflation of the Bible, and the Vulgate, only,
(if we except the Arabic, which is not regarded of
much authority ; fee Whitby ,) the number of perfons is
really as he dates, viz. 23,000; though in fome copies
it is more, even 33,000 : but in the Greek verfion it is
only £<f rpi%ixls$ dvtyas, about three thoufand, as our ver-
flon alfo has it. And this is in agreement with the He¬
brew, tf/'K *d!?n rwbw, only, unfortunately for M. Vol¬
taire,

396

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

taire, fomewhere or other there has happened a miftake
about a Caph. The numeral power of this Hebrew
letter is well known to be 20, fo that here feems to be
undoubtedly either an unwarrantable infertion, or a
mifconftru&ion of a D, as I have ftated in the Difcourfe,
on which the credit of the Bible is made to depend. It
is certain there is a D in the original ; but it is not a
numerical, according to the ableft judges, but an ad¬
verbial prefix, anfwering exactly to the Latin term cir-
citer, and which has been carefully preferved in the
other verfions of the Bible. I hope this will not ap¬
pear trifling, when we have to do with fuch trifling
critics. Had M. Voltaire been ever fo little acquainted
with Hebrew, and felt a real concern for the truth,
inftead of making us indifferent about fuch miftakes,
he fhould have cautioned us again ft them ; for it is no¬
torious, that fuch miftakes are eafy, from the great fi-
milarity of the letters ; and whether the Bible be true
or not, if M. de Voltaire thought it of importance to
the world, that its credit fhould be impeached, he muft
be held to have acknowledged the ufe and importance
of Criticifm, even while he was abufing it, and turning
it into ridicule.

M. de Voltaire was a bad or a very difingenuous cri¬
tic in Latin, as well as Hebrew. In order to prove
that the Jews were not the only people acquainted
with the unity of God, he adduces the following line
from Virgil, to {hew that the heathens alfo worfhipped
one God, viz. Jupiter.

Difcite juftitiam moniti, et non temnere Di-vos.

A Latin fcholar muft fee that this line exprefsly afferts
a plurality of Gods : but a plain Englifiiman would
know nothing about it ; nor yet a plain Frenchman ;
and therefore, in fupport of his argument, M. Voltaire
makes no fcruple to tranflate it,

Soyez juftes, mortels, et ne craignez qu 'un Dieu !

Surely, for the vindication of truth, the fecurity of
man, and even the honour of God, a critical knowledge
of the dead languages was never more neceffary. Bifliop
Warburton has noticed M. de Voltaire’s great igno¬
rance, in the 6th fedtion of his fourth book of the Dim
' vine Legation of Mofes , note (t) : an ignorance always

in ex-

NOTES TO SERMON VIE

397

inexcufable in a perfon who pretends to tell the world
fo much, as he pretends to tell us in his writings, about
the Hebrews, and Arabians, and Greeks, and Ro¬
mans.

But it is not only for the purpofe of dete&ing the
fallacies and ignorant affertions of fuch writers as Mr.
Paine and Voltaire, that Learning and Criticifm are
neceffary : much greater fcholars have defcended to
fuch low arts, as they ought certainly to be afhamed
of. I blufh for the frequent mifreprefentations and pre¬
varications, and tricks of fuch a writer as Mr. Gibbon :
he has even condefcended, as it would appear, to adopt
the very mifreprefentations of Voltaire; where he en¬
deavours to difgrace Marcel! us as the encourager of
mutiny and Sedition, becaufe he would not be a Soldier,
on the intolerant terms of worjhipping the heathen idols.
Mr. Gibbon refers to Ruinarfs Adis of the Martyrs , and
Voltaire exa6tly agrees in mifreprefenting the matter.
Marcellus’s own Speech, as related in the Adis of the
Martyrs , is exceedingly fine. Another inftance of Mr.
Gibbon’s artifice (for it really is no lefs) is to be found
in his account of the number of Chriftians at Antioch.
To take their number as low as poffible , he appeals to
Cbryfojlom , to Shew that they amounted to only one
hundred thoufand perfons : u while,” fays he, “ it is at
“ the fame time admitted, that the whole number of
“ its inhabitants was not lefs than half a million.” The
paffage from Chryfoftom referred to he acknowledges
he adopted from Dr. Lardner : the amount of the popu¬
lation from John Malela . Now it is curious, that in
the fame page from which Mr. Gibbon confeffes he
borrowed Chryfoftom’s account of the number of
Chriftians, his account alfo of the population is to be
found, amounting only to two hundred thoufand . But,
inftead of taking St. Chryfoftom’s calculation in this
lafl particular, he prefers John Malela’s ; an author, of
whom, on another occajion, he is pleafed to fay, £e the
“ authority of that ignorant Greek is very flight.” See
the Abbe Nonnette’s Erreurs de Voltaire , and Ch elf urn's
fern arks , 3d edit.

It cannot but be regarded as a curious circumftance
in the hiftory of this age of Reafon, that two of the
ableft Sceptics it has to boaft of fhould have been ad¬
vocates

398 NOTES TO SERMON VII.

vocates for the exploded fyftem of Pagan mythology ;
I mean Mr. Gibbon and Mr. Hume : the latter a pro-
feffed admirer, (fee his Natural Hfiory of Religion ,) the
former a ready apologift. I do not pretend to recon¬
cile inconfiftencies; I know Mr. Gibbon in one place
commends the fuperior intelligence of thofe “ wiled of
tne heathen/' whole “ fecret contempt penetrated
“ through the thin and aukward difguife of their po-
“ pular religion." Decline and Fall , ch. xv. But then,
in another place, he fpeaks almoft in raptures of the
ie elegance ' of their mythology ; “ the gaiety, cheer-
fulnels, and fplendour" of their feftivals; and the li¬
berality with which they admitted foreign Deities and
foreign rites, and which of courfe he admires as the
extreme or toleration. But his partiality for the vain,
lautaftical, and often impious ceremonies of Paganifm
is by no means the greateft difgrace, which Mr. Gib¬
bon has brought on this age of Reafon. In his Stric¬
tures on the Conduit of the Primitive Fathers of the Church ,
he has tacitly recommended and approved fuch a bafe
and unmanly fubmiffion of Reafon, as is truly difguft-
ing : and if other Deifts have a juft regard for the ho¬
nour and privileges of human Reafon, as they pretend,
Mr. Gibbon ought to rank very low in their eftima-
tiorn I am truly afhamed when I read his laboured
vindications or Pagan toleration, accompanied with the
molt infidious reprefentations of the commendable, up-
right, hone ft, and honourable refiftance, which the pri¬
mitive Chri Ilians made to all the fooleries and abfurdi-
ties of idolatry : a refiftance the more to be admired,
vvhen^ contrafted with the mean compliance of thofe
wife ft of the heathens," who, “when they knew God,”
as Mr. Gibbon pretends, “glorified him not as God’;”
who “ prof effing to be wife became fools who
“ changed the glory oj the incorruptible God into a?L
“ image made like to corruptible man , and to birds, and to
“four-footed beajls , and creeping things — “who changed
“ the truth of God " (if they really had a due apprehen¬
sion of it, as Mr. Gibbon infifts) “ into a lie , and wor¬
shipped and ferved the creature more than the Creator,
v ho is blefjed for ever. Amen.” A refiftance the more
manly and creditable, the more apparently trifling were
tnole acts of fubmiftion, which might have faved their

lives y

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

39 9

lives, at the expence of their veracity, their faith, and
their integrity. u An eafy pardon,” lays Mr. Gibbon,
<( was granted to repentance ; and if they contented to
cc cad a few grains oj incenje upon the altar, they were
<c difmiffed from the tribunal with fafety and applaufe.”
— An eafy pardon granted to repentance ! — Repentance?
For what ? For worlhipping and adoring the true God,
in preference to docks and ftones ; murderers, adul¬
terers, and tyrants ? ce A few grains ot incenfe?” In»
cenfe ! to whom ? to Jupiter, Mars, Venus , and a whole
rabble of fuch Gods and Goddeffes ! — “ Difmified with
“ applaufe !” — human, popular, vulgar applaufe ! in¬
dead of — the approbation of an all -feeing God — the fa-
tisfadlion of their own confcienees — the content ol
their own reafon — the admiration of every honourable
and honed man ! Hear one of thefe very martyrs de-
lcribe their conduH, and the motives by which they
were governed ; and which Mr. Gibbon is pleated to
reprefent as obdinacy and folly 5 — “ ’EZs1a.g6y.evoi, sx dp-
“ vurjssSct, Sid ro cruvsTrircc^fccj kccvrolg yySh ipccvXov, dosCs; Sk
“ yyspevoi MH KATA II ANT A AAH0ETEIN, 0 xat 4>IAON
te TEt 0EEt yivw(TKo^£v.” Jujl . Mart. Jlpol. i. Rut in¬
deed it is but too evident, that Mr. Gibbon mud have
yielded to fome very difgraceful prejudices, when he
cenfured, as he has done, the noble fortitude of the
fird Chridian martyrs. Upon occadon he could fee
the foul crime of diffimulation in as hateful a light as
ourfelves : for though he could judify the conduct of
the Pagan philofophers for their conformity to a fydem
of religion, which in their hearts they defpifed ; and
cenfure the behaviour of the martyrs, as obdinate and
perverfe; yet he feems to have thought very differently
of any fuch compliance with Chrijlian rites. Thus, for in¬
dance, he fpeaks of Julian’s occafional conformity, after
he became an apodate: <( But as every a6t of diffimulation
6e mud be painful to an ingenuous lpirit, the profedion
“ of Chridianity increafed his averfion for a religion,
(( which oppreffed the freedom of his mind, and com-
“ pelled him to hold a conduft repugnant to the noblejl
(C attributes of human nature , sincerity and cou-
<e rage.” Decline and Fall, ch. xxiii. This is the
fame author who blames the Chridian Fathers for re¬
futing to join in the Pagan rites ! In another place he

400

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

fpeaks of the Pagan fenators, who reluctantly renounced
the worfhip of Jupiter, in the prefence of Theodolius,
as eager to throw afide “ the mark of odious diffimula -
ci lion.” ch. xxviii.

I would recommend to any young perfon who fhould
be prejudiced againft the primitive Fathers, and primi¬
tive Chriftianity, by Mr. Gibbon's Strictures, not to
form their judgment from his chofen authority, Tertul-
lian ; but to read the fhort epiftle of Jujlin Martyr to
Diogneius , and his Dialogue with Trypho ; the former
of which is a beautiful fummary of Chriftianity, and
the latter abounds in Chriftian charity. Let him read
belides Alhenagoras’ s Apology ; and as to the general
conduct of the primitive Chriftians under perfecution,
and otherwife, he will find a much more juft account
in Mr. Bryant’s elegant and concile Treatife on the Au¬
thenticity of the Scriptures, 2d edit. 17 93.

I am forry to have ftill to add to this long note : but
Mr. Gibbon’s views and reprefentations of Pagan tole¬
ration alfo require fome counterpoife, and therefore I
cannot forbear to add the following admirable remark
of Dr. Leland, to be found in the introduction to his
excellent AnJ'wer to Tindal. c< I cannot well reconcile
u the extravagant accounts of that liberty, which flou-
“ rifhed among the Pagans, with the excufe he makes
“ for the philofophers (the excufe is common with
other writers, and, though a difgraceful one, is the only
excufe that can be made for them;) ce that if they
t: feemed to countenance the fuperftitions of their coun-
u try, it was ‘ becaufe it was not fafe to talk otherwife ;*
“ and that they were obliged to uf$ c foftening expref-
ie fons,’ and that therefore they c writ under great dif-
“ advantages.” On this fubjeCl of Pagan toleration,
which has been fo continually mifreprefented, the
reader may further confult M. Pauw’s Recherches Phi¬
lo) op hiques fur les Grecs ; the Abbe Nonnette’s Erreurs de
Voltaire , vol. i. IVarburton’ s Divine Legation of Mofes ,
b. ii. §§. 5. 6. Lett’s Hid Bampton LeClure , and the re¬
ferences there ; and Puller on Deifm , Part I. ch. 5.

Page 362. note (3).

It is far from my intention, and from the defign of
this work, to difeufs the feyeral fubje&s of controverfy

alluded

NOTES TO SERMON VIE

401

alluded to in the Difcourfe. The fubje£l of this Ser¬
mon is Criticifm in general ; its ufe and abufe ; with
reference, however, particularly to the prefent times,
and the Age ot lleaj'on , the chief topic of thefe Lectures.
It cannot, I think, be queftioned but that the two doc¬
trines ot Atonement and the Trinity are thole concern¬
ing which Biblical Criticifm has been lately molt occu¬
pied, and pofiibly always will be fo. The firft and
leading objections to the received notions of atonement
and the Trinity, have nothing indeed to do with Cri¬
ticifm. They are principally metaphylical ; a priori
arguments on the part of Reafon, as* to what God can
or cannot do, or be expeCted to do ; what mv.Jl be his
precife mode of exigence, &c. — which are luch mere
irn pertinencies, where the queftion really relates to
facts, that they are not worth confidering. I muft
confefs, I never can with any patient hope of improve¬
ment entertain luch queftions as, whether God could
require a facrifice ? or whether he could not have for¬
given us without a facrifice ? whether his Unity may
be, in the poffibility of things, confident with a Tri¬
nity? &c. he. Thole who regard the Bible as a revela¬
tion from God, have only to fearch and enquire
whether luch doClrines are to be found there. And in
Inch a cafe, nothing but Criticifm, found and honell
Criticifm, can ferve to fober the intemperance of hu¬
man Reafon, to correct the mi hakes of ignorance,
and to point out the milreprefentations of prejudice or
incapacity.

That it will in all cafes be effedtual, or that it ever
will be even in one inltance effectual, to the converfion
of a Deijl or Socinian, I do not pretend to lay : not that
I mean to charge any with fo perverfe an obflinacy, as
to be blind to all truth ; but becaufe the objedf of the
former being to deny the ufe, and necefiity, perhaps
even the poffibility, of a divine revelation, every argu¬
ment drawn from the facred books may for ever con¬
tinue quellionable ; and the object of the latter being
conj'ejjedly to explain away the literal meaning of the
text, no bounds can be fet *o the interpretations
which fancy may fuggeft, or prejudice invent. But as
U>ng as Revelation is queftioned, and the literal meaning
of the Scriptures dilputed, Criticifm muft be of the

d utmoft

402

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

utmoft ufe, to open the eyes of thofe who are in danger
of being milled. If thele queftions were entirely con¬
fined to the learned, I hope I fhould never be found
deficient in refpeft for any man’s talents and attain¬
ments, or an enemy to any inveftigations honefily
purfued, and decently conduced, let the conclufions
they led to be what they might. But when thole
who cry out mod loudly for the unlimited exercife of
Reafon, will allow no man to have any reafon but them-
felves, or thofe who think as they do ; (for the title
of rational Chriftians furely implies this, which Dr.
Prieftley, Mr. Belfham, and Mr. Lindfey, infill upon as
being lynonimous with Unitarian; <( rational, that is ,
“ Unitarian Chrifiians,” are Dr. Prieftley’s own words ;
and Mr. Belfham and Mr. Lindfey have the fame ; lee
Magee^ and an excellent note in Fuller s Calviniftic and
Socinian Syjlems compared , p. 42;) when, under pretence
of learning, and great reading, and an uncommon ap¬
plication of time, labour, patience and candour the
common people are given to underhand, that the Bible
does not contain doctrines, which the regular miniftry
of the Church have been careful to inftrucl them in ;
when the flrongelt alfertions are advanced which ad¬
mit of being proved to be in direct oppofition to the
truth, it is impoflible to overlook fuch extravagant af-
fumptions, and mifchievous attempts.

It is not againll the truly learned or truly confcientious
Deilt or Socinian, then, that any flri&ures I have to ad¬
vance are intended. I wifh every fuch opponent of
the Trinity, or of the doctrine of atonement, or even
of Revelation, to make the utmoli ufe of his critical
(kill and knowledge. If the whole depends on the
teflimony of antiquity, the true meaning of certain
Hebrew and Greek phrafes, and the true interpreta¬
tions of the culloms of pad times, let every authority
be carefully confulted and examined: but let us not be
told, without examination , that things are fo, or not fo :
let not the mafs of the people be deceived into a no¬
tion, which we think a vain one, namely, that the
literal terms of the Bible are only calculated to mif-
lead them, and that the doftrines of the Trinity and
atonement, are the mere fabrication of incompetent
Criticifm, or bold Impofture.

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

403

Tt is too common with the unlearned to fancy Cri-
ticilin unfriendly to the caufe of truth. They do not
like to be told, that their falvation is to depend on the
conftru&ion of a Hebrew or Greek term, the fubftitu-
tion of a Caf>b for a Beth , or a Jod for a Vau : (fee
Note 2 :) and God forbid it fhould, in regard to them-
felves. But if it is of confequence to them to know the
terms of falvation, (and if it is not, Revelation itfelf is of
no ufe,) then it is fit they fhould know that it is only
from had Critics they are in danger; found Criticifm is
their only fecurity, and the truly learned their only
friends. A few infiances, perhaps, will ferve to illuftrate
this ; and if I feleCl them chiefly from the writings of
Dr. Prieftley and his affbciates, it will be partly on ac¬
count of their notoriety, and partly becaufe, though the
DoCtor particularly has treated thele fubjeCts with all
the parade of learning in fome editions of his works,
where they are open to Criticifm, and have accordingly
been amply criticifed ; yet his opinions have been alio
vended and circulated, by himfelf and other editors,
in a different fliape ; ftripped of the criticifms, and re¬
ferences, and citations; and in plain Englifh: in which
publications, (and I have one lying before me, dated
three years after the valuable edition of Bifhop Horf-
ley’s charges and correfpondence,) difputed aflertions
are repeated without proofs, and yet, as fully proved;
as unanfwerable, though anfwered and refuted long
before; as correCI, though known to have been them¬
selves corrected, by fuch an application of Criticifm as
cannot be difputed.

It might well furprife an unlearned Chriftian of the
Church of England to be told, as Dr. Prieftley tells us,
that “ from a full review of the religions of all ancient
<c and modern nations, they appear to have been ut-
cc terly deftitute of any thing like a do&rine of proper
“ atonement.” Any found Critic being an honeft
man would certainly never have faid this : but I do
not mean to fay that Dr. Prieftley was not honeft in
making fuch an affertion ; for he challenges us to find,
“ in the range of the whole Jewifb and Heathen world,
“ a Angle fad in contradiction.” This is at leaft fair,
and it is well for the truth, that Critics have not been
wanting to make fuch an enquiry. I will venture to

D d 2 fay.

404

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

fay, that the learned Profeffor Magee alone (for a re¬
ference to his very learned Notes upon the fubjebt,
in his late publication on atonement, is furely l’ufti-
cient) has proved this aflertion to be as contrary to
fa£t, as any thing could be. It is a fortunate circum-
ftance therefore, that Criticifm is ftill cultivated fuffi-
ciently to refcue the world from the ill effects of fuch
. confident, but ill founded afiertions. — Again, as the
opinions of the primitive Fathers of the Church will
always be reforted to as authority of no fmall weight
and refpeefability, when their teftimony is adduced, it
is highly important that their words (liould be correCtly
tranflated ; and if terms which give a particular turn,
if not the whole force, to a fentence, are overlooked or
omitted, it is well to have Critics who are capable of re¬
storing them to their proper places. That fuch accidents
have befallen Dr. Prieftley’s references and tran nations,
may be feen in Bijhop Horjle/s Tra&s , Letter I. §. 7.
Letter VI. §§. 12—23. Letter X. §.4. And that other
modern Unitarians are liable to fuch overfights may
be feen alfo, I think, in the review of Mr. Jones’s Deve-
lopement of Fa£ls , Brit. Crit . vol. xviii. 630.

Any Trinitarian might well be ft ar tied to learn from
Dr. Prieftley, that “ we find nothing like Divinity
“ afcribed to Jefus Chrift before Juftin Martyr,” and
that “ all the early Fathers fpeak of Chrift as not hav-
“ ing exifted always.” — And if there were no Critics
capable of conftruing Greek better than Dr. Prieftley ;
if there were not borne capable of reading what he
never read, or of reading what he had read with more
attention and better judgment ; had there never been
fuch fcholars as Bifhop Bull, and Bifhop Horfiey, to
examine into thefe matters, thefe very afiertions might
have palled for indifputable truths. But I mull confefs
I think the contrary is as clearly proved, as Criticifm
can prove it ; and this is a queftion merely of Criticifm.
How the Ante-Nicene Fathers exprefied themfelves
we know; who is moft capable of interpreting their
expieffions, is another queftion : but we may be fure,
that when Dr. Prieftley, in rendering the celebrated
paflage of Theophilus, which he conceives to be the
firft introduction of the term Trinity, tells us, Theo-
philus wrote, that the u fourth day was the type of

“ man,

NOTES TO SERMON VIE

4 oS

u maTB who needs light, that the word may be God,
“ and the Man wifdom,” Dr. Prieftley was not capa¬
ble of underftanding his authority. Dr. Prieftley cer¬
tainly here makes the learned Bilhop of Antioch talk
nonfenfe againjl the Trinity, when he fpoke as plainly
as he could in favour of it, according to the language
and manners of the times : T srxprvj <5s Tvitos es~)v ’ Avdpujvs'
o itpocrhf rs <pujr6$' hex, y Qaog, A oyog, ’EoploefAv^pwieog.
“ The fourth day was the type of Man, who needeth
“ light, that there might be, God, the Word , or Logos,
“ the Wifdom, Man.” Which, as Bifhop Elorfley lays,
is fo clear, that the fenfe could hardly be miffed at
firft light, by a Ichool-boy in his fecond year of Greek:
and indeed, conlidering what the context expreffes, he
is certainly right. S eeTheopb. ad Autolyc. lib. ii. p. 106,
Oxon. 1084. See alfo the note there.

Dr. Prieftley is dead and gone, and his Criticifms
are at an end. As an able and indefatigable experimen-
talift, his name will live for ever; and from the cha¬
racter he bore among his friends, we are forbidden to
fulpeCt him of any intention to deceive. The forego¬
ing inftances therefore muff be placed to the account
either of his incapacity, or his careleffnefs in forming
his opinions upon theological fubje&s, and in deliver¬
ing them to the world. But the harm that Dr. Prieftley
did not defigti, his writings may ftill produce ; and it
is therefore, that I have thought it my duty to bear
teftimony to the equivocal character of his affertions,
that they may not be received as truths by any means
indifputable. I have chofen the three inftances ad¬
duced from the works of Bifhop Horftey and Profefibr
Magee, becaufe it gives me an opportunity to refer to
publications, which may fupply many other inftances
to the lame purpofe, and which, in this particular line
of Biblical Criticifm, are truly an honour to the age. I am
lorry to fay, that my own collections from the works of
Dr. Prieftley might furnifh many more; but I muft con¬
tract what I have to fay. Any perfon competent to
read the able, and, in moft cafes, unanfwerable argu¬
ments of the two great living Critics referred to, will
lament to be told, that an edition of fome of Dr. Prieft¬
ley ’s writings is extant, evidently prepared for the pe-
fufal, and iuited to the pockets, of the lower claffes of

r> d 3 • people :

406

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

people : in which, as though no queftion had ever
arifen upon the fubjeft, the following is the account
given of the death of Chrift, as defcribed in the Apo-
ftolic writings. 44 The death of Chrift is compared to a
44 Sacrifice in general, because he gave up his life in
‘4 the caufe of virtue and of God ; and more efpeeially
“a facrifice for fin, because his death and refurrec-
tion were necelfary to the confirmation of the Gof-
“ pel, by which finners are brought to repentance, and
“ thereby reconciled to God. It is called a curje, be-
(( cause he died in a date of fufpenfion, which was
44 by the Jews appropriated to thole perfons who were
44 confidered as reprobated by God. And it is called a
44 JPaJJover, because it may be confidered as a fign of
44 our deliverance from the power of fin, as the palfover
44 among the Jews was a fign of their deliverance
44 from the Egyptian bondage. It is alfo called a Ran-
44 fom, because we are delivered by the Gofpel from
44 fin and mifery. On the fame account, he is faid by
44 his death to bear or take away our Jins', fince his
44 Gofpel delivers us from the power of fin, and confe-
44 quently from the punifhment of it.”

If this was only the opinion of a plain unlettered
Englilhman, it might pals for one interpretation among
others; and it would deferve our indulgence, as a mere
conjecture, which every man thinks, and may feel in¬
deed in this country, that he has leave to form. But
when it is officioufly fet forth as the fentiments of a
man who profelfed to be a Critic in Greek and Latin ;
(and indeed in Hebrew, for his Criticifms virtually
extend as far $) who is known to have boafied of the
pains he had taken 44 to read, or at leaft look carefully
44 through, many of the molt capital works of the an-
44 cient Chriftian writers it is really lamentable,
that people fhould be fo milled. There is no Latin or
Greek or Hebrew in the whole book ; but then we are
encouraged to do without them, by tru fling to the ufe
Dr. Priefiley had made of them ; for we are here told
confidently, what has been denied by moll eminent
Critics for many centuries pafi, that Chrift could not
have been a facrifice in the literal fenfe of the term ;
that he could not have been the antitype of the Jewifh
faerifices, the pafchal lamb, or fcape-goat ; that the

tenor

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

407

tenor of the Scripture language is, that God is eflen-
tially merciful and gracious, without the leajl reference
to any other being or agent whatfoever , and difpofed to
forgive us freely and gratuitoufly, upon our repentance
and amendment, without any other atonement or fatij-
f aft l on ; that facrifices for fin under the law of Mo¬
les were never confidered as ftanding in the place of fin-
ners ; that redemption means no more than deliverance
in general ; that to die for us, means only for our
fakes ; and that to bear the fins of mankind, is no
more than to bear or take them away : upon which
laft obfervation, as it is accompanied with a critical
affertion , I cannot forbear Hopping to make fome re¬
marks.

“ Befide the manifeft injuftice, and indeed abfurdity,”
lays Dr. Prieftley, “of an innocent perfon being punifli-
<i ed for one that is guilty, the word does not fignify to
iC bear or take upon another , but to bear away , or to re-
■“ move by whatever means.” There are two Hebrew
words, (for of the Greek term, avapi/w, ufed by St.
Peter, I {hall have to fpeak elfewhere,) out of which
Dr. Prieftley had his choice, XW2 and Vnp. Which of
thefe he alludes to we cannot fay ; but they are both
difcufled, and their meaning amply fcrutinifed by Pro-
feflbr Magee, in the very learned and curious Notes
to his Sermons already referred to. As this is the
m oft modern Criticifm upon thefe terms, it luckily in¬
cludes all Dr. Prieftley ’s obje&ions ; which are in fa <51
only Dr. Taylor’s and Mr. Dodfon’s revived. Dr. Ma¬
gee’s conclufion upon the fubjeft is, that when joined
with the word sin, they are conftantly ufed, through¬
out Scripture, either in the fenfe of forgiving \ t on the
one hand ; or of ' fujlaining9 either directly or in figure,
the penal confequences of it on the other ; and that they
were undoubtedly fo applied by Ifaiah in the cele¬
brated prophecy of our Saviour, who was to be
“ wounded for our tranfgreflions,” and “ [mitten for
“ our iniquities,” by whole “ chaflifement” our peace
was to be efife&ed, and by whole “ bruifes ” we were
to be healed. Such a pofitive aflurance, that the ori¬
ginal word does not fignify to bear , or take upon another ,
could only be calculated to turn the attention of the
unlearned reader afide from the do&rine of Chrift’s

D d 4 having

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

4c S

having been a real facrifice and a proper atonement,
by “ bearing our fins in his own body on the tree,”
I Pet. ii. 24 ; a paffage the terms of which have alfo
been difputed, but which the fame learned Profeflfor has
like wife confidered at length, and ably vindicated
from the mifreprelentations of Socinian Criticifm. Rut
the Englifh reader who knows not a word of Hebrew,
01 Gieek, or Latin, may, I think, be eafily made to
com pi eh end how much the truth is violated by any
unqualified afifertion, that to <c bear Jins” in Scripture
language, does not admit of the fenfie of bearing the Jins
of another , as a weight, or burthen, or punifhment; for
both the original words, b20 and KW1, are fo ufed in
iome paffages of Scripture, as to admit oj no other me an-*
ing ; but particularly excluding the meaning Socinians
would infill upon, that of “ bearing away.” The Dei ft
auQ Infidel, who finci fuch fault with the Jccond Com¬
mandment, particularly Mr. Paine, will not fuffer us, I
fancy, to ciepart from this meaning, wherever in the
Old Tc (lament the Jons are fpoken of as bearing the
iniquities of their fathers. If any, in defence of the de¬
nunciations tney are lo offended with, were to pretend
that the Tons were no otherwife to bear the iniquities of
tnen fatneis, than by removing them and bearing them
away, I believe fuch Criticifm would be thought no
better than a quibbling evafion ; and yet I think the
Socinian could interpret thofe paffages no otherwife
with any confiftency. The niofl fir iking paffages, in
which this expreffion occurs, are Lamentations v. 7,
Ezekiel xviii. 19, 20. in the former of which the term
occurs, and in the latter The whole chapter

of Ezekiel is fufficient to convince any ingenuous mind,
that to bear muft here mean not only to°bear the ini¬
quities of another, but to partake in the weight and
punifhment of them. As for the other unqualified af-
lertion which the paffage contains, that “ there is a
mamfeft mjuflice, and indeed abfurditv, in fuppofing
that an innocent perfon could be punifhed for one
that is guilty I know not why, if good is to
enlue, even in the eye of reafon, an innocent perfon
may not be permitted to fuffer for the fins of another,
as jujtly as to fuffer for no guilt or crime of his own;
which appears to have certainly been the cafe with our

bleffcc}

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

409

blefled Lord at all events, Socinlans themfelves being
judges. But at leaft, St. Peter was blind to this very
vianifefi injuftice and abfurdity; for be even tells us, and
furely with great propriety, <c that it is better , if the will
“ of God be fo, that we fuflfer for well-doing, than for
“ evil-doing 1 Peter iii. 17 : and how does he illuf-
trate it ? By the very cafe of our Saviour ; ie For
“ Chrift,” faith he, “ hath once fuffered for fin, the
cc jujl for the unjnfi, , (that he might bring us to God;)”
ver. j8. And in the preceding chapter how does he en¬
courage fervants to the patient endurance of unjujl
bufferings ? c: For this is thank-worthy, if a man, for
i( confcience toward God, endure grief, Jujfering
“ wrongfully. For what glory is it, if when ye be
(C buffeted for your faults , ye fhall take it patiently ?
ee But if when ye do well, and fuffer for it, ye take it
“ patiently, this is acceptable to God ; for even here-
ee unto were ye called ; becaufe Chrift alfo fuffered for
ee us, leaving us an example, that ye fhould follow his
<c fteps : who did no fin , neither was guile found in his
(e mouth.” Ch. ii. 19 — 22. I know we (hall be fent
back to our Lexicons, and Bibles, to difcover the true
fenfe of buffering for another, which is faid not to
imply any fubffitution of one for another. Profeffor
Magee ha$ confidered this difficulty alfo in the 30th
Note to his iff; Sermon; to which I muff: refer the read¬
er, my only object being to (hew, that it is not allow¬
able to fay in fo unqualified a manner, that there is a
manifeft injuftice and abfurdity in the notion of one
perfon buffering for the guilt of another ; for according
to our notions, I fee not, but that it might appear
to be always unjuft that the innocent fhould fuffer at
all, and an abfurdity that they fhould be made to buf¬
fer, or even be permitted to fuffer, for the fake of, and
for the benefit of, th e finful and guilty ; which is the only
amendment the Socinians offer us. The Racovian Ca-
techifm afferts, that Chrift died, as ViEiima J'uccedanea ;
u and I think, (fays the Examiner of Mr. Leflie’s laft
Dialogue on the Socinian Controverfy,) C£ he that
“ buffers with a defign to prevent our buffering (which
a is granted) truly buffers nofiro loco , in our ftead.”

Not long ago the world was much occupied in
learning from Mr. Godwin what were the true princi¬
ples

4io

NOTES TO SERMON VH.

pies of Political Juffice. Now one of the princi¬
ples he lays down is to the following effeCI : (( It is
6C right that I fhould infliCt fuffering in every cafe where

it can be clearly fhewn, that fuch infli&ion will pro-
“ dace an overbalance of good : but this infliction
C( bears no reference to the mere innocence or guilt of
“ the perfon upon whom it is made. An innocent man
<e is the proper fubjeCt of it, if it tend to good/' Pol.
Juft . vol. ii. p. 322.

It will flill, I know, be obje&ed, as Epifcopius of
old objeCted, that it is a different thing to punifh the
innocent, and to punifh one for the fins of another, of
which he was not guilty. There is a difference, we
acknowledge; but yet a Socinian has been found, who
has granted, that the latter has been the cafe with the
Jews ; and not only fo, but that all nations have learnt
from experience “ quod gravia fcelera etiam in liberis
t( vindicentur.” See JVblzogenius on Matth. xxvii. 23.
iC Ilis blood be upon us, and upon our children cited
by Edwards, in the fecond part of his Preservative
againjl Socinianifm, p. 52. Grotius alfo, in his cele¬
brated TraCt De SatisfaBione Chrijli , c. 4. obferves,
(e Ubi conlenfus aliquis antecederet, ferme aufim dicere
“ omnium eorum quos Paganos diximus, neminem fu-

iiTe, qui alium ob alterius deliCtum puniri injuftuni

duceret.”

I have Ihewn, that in the cafe of Dr. Prieftley there
is good reafon to be fufpicious of his Criticifms, w'hen
he ventures to tell us why it is that our Saviour’s fuffer-
ings are fpoken of in terms applicable to the Jewdfh and
heathen facrifices. His “ becauses” are not always
very correft, nor yet Mr. Lindfey’s u videlicets
of w'hich I fliall next proceed to give an inftance.

In h is Hijlorical View of the State of the Unitarian
DoBrine and Worfhip , he is very fevcre upon Dr. Dod¬
dridge’s mode of Criticifm concerning the two natures
of Chrift, in his paraphrafe on Mark xiii. 32. ( Family
Expojitor , fed. clxii.) Dr. Doddridge’s mode of Criti¬
cifm arifes from a difficulty, which is common to the
Trinitarian and Socinian ; namely, that in the New
Teftament many things are predicated of Chriff, which
cannot be otherwife reconciled, than either by the fup-
pofition, that he pofleffed two natures, or by explain-

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

411

ing away fome of the plaineft and fi in pi e ft declarations
of Chrift himfelf. Dr. Doddridge proceeds upon the
firft plan ; Mr. Lindfey adopts the latter. Dr. Dod¬
dridge’s mode of Criticifm has been adopted by many
very able commentators, and very well illuf rated by
the learned Mr. Leflie, in his ftrft Dialogue on the So-
cinian Controverfy . See alfo Jenhhis Beafonablenefs of
Chrijlianity , vol. ii. 360 ; Burnet on the Articles ; B'ljhop
Bretyman s Elements of Chrijlian Theology ; and the Vth
Dialogue of A thanaf us, 183. edit. I57°*

That fuch a mode of interpretation is natural, fup-
pofing the doftrine of the Incarnation to be true, Mr.
Lindfey might learn from a work, which cannot be
fufpe6ted of any theological bias : and I dial! cite it,
becaufe it may at lead lerve to fliew, that Dr. Dod¬
dridge’s method of interpretation is not a mere inven¬
tion of Chrijlian divines, fubfequent to the days of E-
rafmus, as Mr. Lindfey would inlinuate.

The Hindus, who, it is well known, regarded an in¬
carnation of the Deity to be an event ftriCfly poffible,

appear, from the Bhagvat-Geeta, to have exactly ad¬
opted the diftin6lion Dr. Doddridge is cenfured for,
and to have conceived it to be both natural and reafon-

able. Kreefhna, who is fuppofed to be the Deity In¬
carnate, after having difclofed his divine nature te

Arjoon, in the following terms, among others, “ I am
“ the Creator of all things, and all things proceed from

VI v W

“ me is thus addreffed by Arjoon : u Neither the

“ Dews nor the Danoos are acquainted, O Lord, with
ei thy appearance ; thou alone, O Fir ft of Men , knoweft
(( thy own fpirit.” Upon which laft words I find Mr,

Wilkins’s note to be, u Arjoon makes ufe of this ex-
ce preffion, as addrefling the Deity in his human fhape.”

And thus at the beginning of the XI th Lefiurc , Arjoon
is alfo reprefented as addrefling the Incarnate Deity :
6e It is even as thou haft defcribed thyfelf, 0 mighty
6e Lord! I am now, 0 moft elevated of Men , anxious to
“ behold thy divine countenance; wherefore, if thou
“ thinkeft it. may be beheld by me, fliew me thy never-
“ failing fpirit.”

My object in this reference is only to fliew, that
fuppofing an incarnation of the Deity pofiible, it is na¬
tural

412

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

tuial ail} to fpeak of the two natures as diftindt, and to
conceive, that the attributes of the Deity may, by the

aiTumption of the human nature, be concealed from
our view.

But to return to Mr. Lindfey. When Dr. Doddridge
refers our Lord's ignorance of the day of judgments
his human nature, he fupports his paraphrafe by citing
John iii. 13. to fhew, that it could not have regard to
the divine nature of Chrift, in refpedt to which he muft
neceffai ily have been, as his own words intimate, both
omniprelent and omnifcient. “No man hath afeendcd

up fo heaven , but he that came down from heaven ; even
U Me Son of Man, which is in heaven}' Dr. Doddridge's
paraphrafe has the consent and approbation of alrnoft all
other commentators, who acknowledge the Divinity of
our bleffed Saviour : and the paflage juft cited from
John is upon all occafions held to exprefs at once
both the hypoftatical union, and the common diftinc-
tion of the two natures. “ Quod fe filium hominis
“ (ld eft hominem) in ccelo efle docet,” is Beza’s ex¬
planation, 6£ aperte duas naturas diftinguit, et unam
“ hypo ft a fin con firm at." See his note upon the paffage
But at all events, the pre-exiftence of our Saviour woMd
feein to be eftablifhed by it. Mr. Lindfey, however
denies this ; and after blaming Dr. Doddridge for his
“ quibbling arts” and the liberties he takes with the
exprejs words of our Saviour, he tells us, that it has
been thought by fome to be made out to full fatisfac -
tion, that the words in queftion hold forth nothing of
the hud which is here inferred from them but are
thus to be underftood :

jlnd no man hath afeended up to heaven .j videlicet
No man knows the whole mind and will of God for
the falvation of mankind. 3

But he that came down from heaven .] videlicet
But !, who have my commiffion from God, who am
his Prophet, his Meffenger, and the Meffiah.

Who is in heaven.] videlicet, Who am intimately
acquainted with the counfels of God.

Mr. Lindfey fubjoins, “ Indolent and fuperficial in-
quirers among Chriftians, and unbelievers of like
character, may objedt to fuch a conftru&ion of our
Loid s woids ; that the real meaning fliould be fo re-

*c mots

NOTES TO SERMON VIE

413

tc mote from the found of the words.” But is not this,
by Mr. Lindfey’s own acknowledgment, to make our
Saviour quibble ? Is there any worfe way of equivo¬
cating, than to have a real meaning remote from the
found of the words we utter ? And yet it is in this, way
that the “ rational Chriftians” expound every fpeech of
our bleffed Lord, which has been thought to infer his
pre-exiftence and divinity, his omniprefence and omni¬
potence. It is thus alfo that they explain all that the
Apoftles have told us of the efficacy of the blood of
Chrift ; and fo remote do they make the real meaning
of their expreffions to be, from the found of the words
made ufe of, that though the Apoftle to the Hebrews
infills upon it, that the object of Chrifi’s appearance
upon earth was to 66 put away fin by the facrijice of
<i himfelf” and that accordingly <c Chrift was once of-
(i fered to hear the Jins of many;” yet we are taught to
believe his paffion was no facrifice, his blood no atone¬
ment : we are confidently allured, that “ Jefus Chrift
C( never profeffed himfelf to be a Being of any other
“ nature than the human, and that his Apoftles never
cs believed or declared him to be more.” Land fey , p. xL
Trinitarians can never make a better defence for
themfelves than by affirming, that they cannot believe
otherwife, confiftently with their refpeCl for the fince-
rity and integrity of our Lord and his Difciples. But
Mr. Lindfey is highly offended with this mode of de¬
fence, and confiders it as a bafe afperfion of the cha¬
racters of Chrift and his Apoftles. Biffiop Newton,
from a full confideration of the many paflages in the
New Teftament, which have been generally held to
affign to Chrift the attributes and di ft i nations of the
Godhead, concludes with reafon, that if fuch language
is not to be confidered as implying the proper divinity
of Chrift, our Saviour himfelf, and his holy Apoftles,
inuft lie under the imputation of being blafphemers and
impoftors ; which is fo fhocking and incredible, that
we have no alternative, but to believe that God was
a dually in Chrift reconciling the world to himfelf;
that is, that Chrift was God. Is this to afperfe the
characters of Chrift and his Apoftles ? Is it not to vin¬
dicate and defend the integrity of their words? Suppole

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

the Bifhop had rejected their evidence, and aligned as
a reafon, that he had difcovered, that though the ex-
preftions were literally fo intelligible, as that no one
could miftake them; yet that it was fo much the way
of Chrift and his Apoftles to ufe words remote in found
from the real meaning they defigned to exprefs, that
he would not believe them, though they told him the
fame thing over and over again : — I believe it would be
generally admitted, that this would be indeed a grofs
ai peril on of their characters. Ft is odd enough that
SocimiS' is in the fame fcrape with the Bifhop : he, it
feems, judged, from the character given to our bleffed
Lord in the Gofpels, that prayer and invocation were
lo evidently due to him, that he declared, if it was not
fo, u Chrilt and his Apoftles mufl have been molt re-
6i markable impoftors and faffifiers, and no credit can
“ or ought to be given to any thing they fay.” To do
Socinus juftice, it fliould be known, that he alfo care¬
fully prefaces his remark with an affurance, that Chrift
and his Apoftles had clearly taught the propriety and
lawfulnefs of invoking Chrift. “ Sic enim cum ab ip-
“ so, turn ab Apoftolis edoCti fumus.” And yet, what
are Mr. Lindfey’s reflections upon this ? “ Such vehe-
‘£ ment affeverations, and fuch unworthy infmuations
“ concerning our Lord and his Apoftles, betray a mind
“ too much heated with prejudice and felf- opinion, to
“ inquire with a proper temper after truth.” So much
for Socinus fingly : but when the Bifhop comes to be
joined with him, “ I would be far from faying,” fays
Mr. Lindfey, c< that Socinus or Bifhop Newton were
men void of true piety , as I believe they had a great
deal ; and it is a diipolition of mind that is particu-
“ larly difcernible throughout all the writings of the
“ former . But this may be faid concerning them, from
“ the licence which they both gave themfelves in
“ afperfing the characters of Chrift and his Apoftles, on
the fuppofition, that their words were not agreeable
“ to t^eir interpretation of them ; that they were men
ot ftrong paffions, unreafonably attached to their own
conclufions, and impatient of contradiction about
tnem ; and perhaps, (which is the beft apology that
can be made for them,) weakly imagined, that all
. 44 Reve-

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

4*5

ci Revelation would fall to the ground, and come to
cc nothing, if their particular fyftems concerning it
66 were not to be embraced, and univerfally prevail.”

It is certainly a great blunder in Mr. Lindfey’s Cri-
ticifm, that he cannot difcover, that to give ftrong cre¬
dit to any dodlrine, which we conceive to have been
exprefsly taught by our Saviour and his Apo files, be-
caufe they would otherwife feem to have been impof-
tors and falfifiers, is to defend and do honour to the
integrity of their characters. How Mr. Lindfey could
argue himfelf into the contrary fuppofition we can only
judge from his own words: 66 It is wholly unaccount -
“ able/’ fays he, “ how men could bring themfelves
“ to ufe fuch terms as thefe concerning the bleffed Je-
e( fus ; that he muft be thus undervalued and fet at
“ nought, as a grofs impoflor, a foul blafphemer, or
ce downright madman, if he be not what fome men
u take him to be, and do not come up to all that their
“ warm imaginations have figured to them concerning
(( him.” Indeed they do no fuch thing: they only
fay, his expreffions fo palpably convey to us the no¬
tion of his divinity, and his title to invocation, that
we mufl believe both, becaufe the blelfed Jefus was in
his whole life fo pure, fo holy, fo corre/t, that we
could believe any thing fooner than that he could im-
pofe on us, or blafpheme God, or indulge any frantic
ideas of his own equality with him. This is the fub-
ftance of both Bifhop Newton’s and Socinus’s defence:
and as it is the left reafon to be affigned for our belief
of the Trinity, it is well to vindicate it from fuch
Orange and ineonfiffent Criticifm. Bifhop Burnet adopts
the lame method of vindication of his belief of the di¬
vinity of Chrifl : “ When all thefe things are laid to-
t£ gether, in that variety of expreffions, in which they
<£ lie fcattered in the New Teftament, it is not poflible
<( to retain any reverence for thole books, if we ima-
u gine they are written in a ftyle fo full of approaches
“ to the deifying of a mere man, that without a very
<f critical fludying of languages and phrafes,” (and we
might add, upon Mr. Lindfey’s authority, and the
culiom of other rational Chriftians, a jubjlitution of fome
\ meaning very remote from the found oj the words ufedf)
<£ it is not poflible to underfland them otherwife. Ido-

££ latrv

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

416

latry and a plurality of Gods feem to be the maid
things that the Scriptures warn us againft ; and yet
here is a purfued thread of paffages and difcourfes,
“ that do naturally lead a man to think that Chrift is
“ the true God ; who yet, according to thofe who de-
“ ny his divinity, only a£ted in his name, and has now
“ a high honour conferred on him by God.”

Bilhop Newton is alfo reproached by Mr. Lindfey
for expreffing his belief, that the Socinians and Unita¬
rians were ot that defcription of heretics, whom St. Pe¬
ter alludes to, 2 Peter ii. 1. and whom he charges with
the fin of denying the Lord that bought them : for the
Socinians neither admit the divinity of Chrift, nor ac¬
knowledge that he made atonement for our fins. But
this, fays Mr. Lindfey, is a miftake of the Bifhop’s.
(c I he Apoftle fpeaks not of Chrift, but of God ; for it
4t is not the ulual language of Scripture concerning
4£ Chrift, that he bought or redeemed us.” This is
really very extraordinary Criticilm. Who was “ the
®c Lord that bought us ,” but ££ the Son 0/ man , who gave
££ his life a ranfom for us P” Matth. xx. 28. Mark x. 45.
The £i one Mediator , the man Chrijl Jefus , who gave him -
“felf a ranfom for all .” 1 Tim. ii. 5. 6. But Mr. Lind¬
fey fays it was God who bought us. Well then ; the
Son of man in Matthew and Mark, and the one Mediator
in Timothy, muft have been God : and fuch is the real
amount of Mr. Lindfey’s argument againft Bifhop New¬
ton. No doubt, had the Bifiiop undertaken to prove
the divinity of Chrift from the above paffages of the
two Evangelifis and St. Paul, Mr. Lindfey would not
have failed to point out to us, that it was only 66 the
Ck Son of Man ,” the Man Chrift Jefus,” who paid the
ranfom. The fa<ft is, it was paid by Chrift Jelus, who
was truly Man. Mr. Lindfey fays, it was paid by God,
and the Trinitarians maintain, that Jefus Chrift was
truly God alfo. Where then is the difference between
us ? Mr. Lindfey fays it is the ufual language of Scrip¬
ture, that God bought and redeemed us : St. Matthew,
St. Mark, and St. Paul affure us, that Chrift Jefus, the
Son ot Man, paid the ranfom : what muft we infer? I
do not mean to make Mr. Lindfey a Trinitarian againft
his own confent ; I only mean to fuggeft, that the di¬
lemma he has here brought himfelf into feems to be a

ftrong

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

417

ftrong cafe for the application of his Biblical Criticifm,
by which the found of the words ufed requires to be
considered, and reprefented as very remote from the
writer’s real meaning ; where nothing lefs than a forced
videlicet can poffibly extricate him.

Mr. Lindfey, p. 254, laments the confequences of
Socinus’s inveterate opinion concerning the propriety
of invoking Chrift, and cenfures the Racovian Cate-
chifms for adopting the error. The compilers, he fays,
were miflaken, in alleging, that Chriftians are ever de-
fcribed in the New Teftament as thofe that called upon
the name of the Lord Jefus. All the paffages that are
fo rendered Should, fays Mr. Lindfey, have been trans¬
lated, “ thofe that were called by the name of Jefus.”
He inftances Adis ix. 14. 21. and 1 Cor. i. 2. If Mr.
Lindfey can find an authority for determining the figni-
fication of rsg hnriyiciXsgsvsg ro ovogcc to be paflive in thefe
places, his Criticifm might be liftened to : but at the
very beft, he could only depend on the verb being
fometimes ufed adlively, and fometimes paffively :
whereas we have again ft him the authority of many
moft eminent critics ; we have the example of the
LXX, who have uniformly kT'ixaXs't&ai ro Logo, rs
to exprefs the invocation of God; we have Mr. Lind-
fey’s own acknowledgment, that in the cafe of Stephen
it is ufed adtively, and that he certainly died “ calling
“ upon the name of the Lord Jefus and we have
the profane teftimony of Pliny to the cuflom of invok¬
ing Chrift among the primitive Chriftians, whom he
defcribes as “ addreffing themfelves in prayer to Chrift
“ quafi Deo.” The great Mr. Locke has been charged
with a wilful endeavour oaAsJav roSso-a, by the fame
fort of Criticifm ; and Mr. Lindfey can fcarcely, I think,
efcape a Similar imputation. See Wells’s note on the
laft paffage cited by Mr. Lindfey, 1 Cor. i. 2. It Should
be remarked, as the learned Dr. Wells obferves, that
the >9 Xsyoyroc, Adis vii. 5. indifputably determines the
Signification of huy.cc\sgsvov to be “calling upon,” in the
cafe of Stephen. See Leigh and Larkhurfl , and conl'ult
Bijhop Horjley s Xllth Letter to Dr. Vriejlley.

Page 365. note (4).

I hope I Shall not do M. Volney any injuftice, in the
remarks I have to offer upon the very extraordinary

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

418

fufpicions he has expreded concerning the real exidence
of oar blefied Saviour. Living altogether in the coun¬
try, with no command of books, but fuch as my own
fmall colle&ion fupplies, I am obliged iometimes to
trud to trandations, which may be faulty : and in this
particular indance, I mud acknowledge, I have only
an Engliffi edition of his Ruins to confult ; a fpirited
trandation certainly, and therefore perhaps correct ;
but without a name, and of a very ordinary appear¬
ance. Nor have I any opportunity of examining lorn e of
the many authorities to which M. Volney refers. I fhall
meddle with no more, therefore, than what I can im¬
mediately reply to : and if I midake M. Volney ’s ar¬
guments, through any error in the trandation I ufe, I
fli all hope to be excuied, when it is conddered, that as
it is my obje<5l to prevent the world from being mided
by the abufe of Criticifm, Criticifm is never more ab-
ufed, than when it is made the means of dazzling the
eyes of the vulgar, by cheap editions and officious
trandation s.

I have briedy dated in the Difcourfe the fum of M.
Volney’s arguments concerning the origin of Chrifti-
anity ; in proof of which he alleges, in his note, that
there are abfolutely no other monuments of the exift-
ence of Jefus Chrid, as a human being, than a paflage
in Jofephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. xviii. c. 3 ; (it fhould be
c. 4 ;) a dngle phrafe in Tacitus, Annal, lib. xv. c. 44;
and the Gofpels. The drd, he fays, is unanimoujly ac¬
knowledged to be apocryphal ; and the fecond is fo
vague, and fo evidently taken from the depojition of the
Chrifians before the tribunals , that it may be ranked in
the clafs of evangelical records. It remains to enquire,
of what authority are thefe records ? [i. e. the evange¬
lical records, or Gofpels.] (6 All the world knows,”
fays Faujlus , who, though a Manichean, was one of
the mod learned men of the third century — 66 All the
i( world knows, that the Gofpels were neither written
C( by Jefus Chrid, nor his Apodles ; but by certain un-
<c known perfons, who rightly judging, that they diould
f( not obtain belief refpebling things which they had
“ not feen, placed at the head of their recitals the
<e names of cotemporary Apodles.” For this piece of
evidence M. Volney cites Beaufobre , vol. i. and Bu-

rigni 's

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

419

rigni’s Hijl. des Apologiftes de la Religion Chretienne .
The latter he calls a fagacious writer, who has demon -
jlrated the abfolute uncertainty of thofe foundations of
the Chriftian religion. And thus he concludes, as I
have ftated in my Difcourfe, that “ the exiftence of Je,-
“ fus is no better proved, than that of Ofiris and Her-
“ cules, Fot or Bedou;” “ with whom,” fays M. de
Guignes, “ the Chinefe continually confound him, for
“ they never call Jefus by any other name than Fot.”
Hijl. des Huns . As to this laft circumftance mentioned
by M. de Guignes, which M. Volney feems to depend
on a good deal ; I mud juft ftop to obferve, that the
name and religion of Fot, or Foe, in China, is /aid , ac¬
cording to that refpe&able Orientalift Renaudot, to have
been introduced into China by an embafly, which had
been fent from thence to difcover the Prophet of the Wejl ,
whom Confucius had feen in vifion, and foretold. But,
inftead of profecuting their journey weftward beyond
India , they conceived Fot to be the Prophet they were
in fearch of, and fo returned, introducing his name and
vvorfhip, idolatry, and the do&rine of the tranfmigra-
tion of fouls, inftead of Chrijlianity , which they might
have imported; for this event is faid to have taken place
thirty- five years after the death of our Saviour. See
Kenaudot’s edition of two Arabic accounts of China,
written in the ninth century; and Couplet's Chronolo¬
gical Abridgment .

# Now if, according to M. Volney’s method of Criti-
cifm, a vulgar error of the Chinefe is to be brought
forward as a proof againft the fa6t of Chrift’s real ex¬
iftence, the tradition juft referred to is, I think, fully
entitled to as much credit. How much more credit it
is entitled to, I do not pretend to fay ; but why it may
not ferve to account for the mifnomer alluded to, I fee
no reafon whatever: and the work I take it from,
though not the jlory , is referred to by M. Volney him-
felf. To proceed to M. Volney's only evidences, or
monuments of the exiftence of Jefus Chrift. The ce¬
lebrated paflage in Jofephus has never been unanimoujly
pronounced to be apocryphal ; but this is a trifle : it
lias certainly been fufpe&ed, and too much fo to be
brought forward as any decifive proof one way or the

EQ2, other;

4-0

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

other ; though we have lately feen its authenticity in-
lifted upon, by a critic as vifionary, I think, as M. Vol-^
ney. See Jones’s Dev elopement of PaSls, and jLnalyfis oj
the Epijlle to the Romans. But if the paffage is apocry¬
phal, if Jofephus has fupplied us with no decifive ac¬
count ..of the life and miniftry of our Lord, I think it
has bgen proved, that, fo far from his filence being any
demon fixation of Chrift’s non-exijhnce , it is a particular
proof that he did exift; for the report of his exiftence, of
his miracles, &c. mufti have been prevalent when Jofe¬
phus wrote ; and there is much reafon to think, had fuch
reports not been true, he mvjl have had many motives to
prove them to have been falfe. See Bi/hop Berkeley’s Mi -
nutePbilofopber, Dial. vi. 295, 296. Jenkins ReafonableneJ's
of Chrijlianity , vol. i. 311, 31 2. and Rrofejjor Bullet’s
Jewijh and Heathen Rejhmonies 5 where this is admirably
fhewn. But M. Volney does not feem to have known,
that in two other paflages Jofephus fpeaks ftrft of James
the brother of Chrift, rov dh\fov rs ’I^cra rs Xeyogsvs Xpis~8,
and of John th g Baptif ; both pretty ftrong acknow¬
ledgments of his human exiftence. — Let us proceed to
Tacitus.

Tacitus by no means himfelf refers us to the depofi-
tions of the Chriftians : what he particularly affirms of
Chrift might juft as probably, if not more probably, be
derived from the public records of Rome, and perhaps
from the reprefentations of Pontius Pilate himfelf. His
words are, not that the Chriftians only aflerted this of
Chrift, but as a well known matter of fad ; “ Audor
“ nominis ejus, Chriftus ; (qui) Tiberio imperante, per
“ procuratorem Pontium Pilatum fupplicio affedus e-
£C rat.” The account he gives at the lame time of the
charader of the Chriftians could never be derived
from their own depolitions; and what is more, fo far
from faying he learnt their name only from themfelves,
he exprefsly fays, the vulgar, that is, the common peo¬
ple of Rome, called them Chriftians. “ Quos — vulgus

Chriftianos appellabat.” And then follows the reafon
of this appellation ; which, as he was writing for pof-
terity, and regarded Chrillianity only as a vain and
pernicious fuperftition, ( exitiabilis J'uperJlitio ,) which
would foon come to an end, was both proper and ne-

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

431

ceftary. But the allufion to Chrift is fuch as, I think,
to leave no poflible doubt of Tacitus’s own belief of
the fa£l of his human existence.

As to the teftimony of the Gofpels, if we had no
other means of tracing their authenticity and their real
character as hiftorical records, I muft confefs I {hould
be ftrongly inclined to queftion the opinion or that
Faujlus the Manichean of the third century, whom M..
Volney has tingled out; efpecially when he tells us, all
the world knew they were fpurious. It is true, he cites
Beaufobre and M. Burigni. I wilh I had their works
to examine, becaufe I much queftion if Beaufobre could
mention this opinion of Fauftus, without fome notice of
its extravagance : at all events I fhould expect to find
fuch a mark put upon it by M. Burigni, if he really is
fo fagacious a writer as M. Volney pretends. But I
have not their works by me, and I muft fay I do really
not think it worth while to go much out of my way,
either to verify or refute any criticifm of M. Volney’s.
But M. Volney totally fupprelfes the evidence of the
primitive Fathers. Why lb ? Does he include them
among Fauftus’s whole world,” who knew the Gof¬
pels to be fpurious ? Tacitus , it feems, was no lefs , -pro¬
bably, than an E vangelijl\ and yet the primitive Fathers,
who had all been either Jews or Pagans, are not no¬
ticed, except indeed in one inftance to give their tefti-
mony rather again ft Chrift. Now' it {hould be remem¬
bered, that their evidence has generally been accounted
particularly valid, becaufe they were not originally E-
vangelifts, but converts. They themfelves claim to be
trufted, in making profelytes, as having been manifeftly
themfelves overcome by the weight of evidence : u De
ie veftris primus,” fays Tertullian ; u fiunt non nafcun-
66 tur Chriftiani.” And Juftin Martyr with great anima¬
tion, in his Cohortation to the Greeks, exclaims, VEA Sets,
rfa.iSsv&qrs’ yzvsoSs dg eyd’ on xoiyd ygry dg vixstg. But if
their declarations concerning Chrift and his religion are
to be l'ufpebted, furely their appeals are not. No writer,
much lefs an apologift, would appeal to records in the
hands of their enemies, if no fuch records ever exifted :
but Tertullian and Juftin Martyr make fuch appeals ;
fee the former, adver. Marcion. lib. iv. c. 7. 36. et ad-
ver. Jud . c. 9. Apolog. c. 2J. and Jujlin. 1 Apolog. ad

E e 3 Antonin .

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

4 22

Antonin . Pium, p. 59. edit. Sylburg. 1593. They make
fuch appeals to prove the birth, death, and refurre£tion
of Chrift ; they appeal to the public records of Rome ;
to the reports of Pontius Pilate ; records, which St.
Chryfoftom tells us were in being when he wrote, 400
years after the birth of Chrift; In Chrijii Natal . tom. v.
edit. Sav. The cenfual Tables at Rome bore evidence
not only to his birth, but that he was, as the Prophets
foretold he Ihould be, (xara crapjca,) of the lineage of
David, and that he was born at Bethlehem. Julian,
who had the Roman archives in his keeping, and in
his power, neither queftioned the truth of our Saviour’s
life and miracles, nor refuted what Tertullian and Judin
had aflerted of them. To which we may add, that Juf-
tin Martyr had to do with Crefcens, the Cynic philo-
fopher, whom he challenged to difpute the caufe of
Chriftianity with him, before the fenate of Rome. We
cannot well doubt, therefore, but he would be correft
in his appeals, and confident in fuch challenge. See
Jenkin,s Reafonablenefs of Chriftianity , and Addifon's E -
vidences of the Chr ftian Religion .

M. Volney’s object, in thus endeavouring to fet afide
the human exiftence of Jefus Chrift, is, as 1 have dated
in the Sermon, in order to be able to perfuade us, that
he was no other than the Indian Vichenou, and that
the Hindu and Chriftian Trinities are identical, and
equally fabulous. His account is really 16 extraordi¬
nary, that I cannot give it in any words but his own :
it begins as far back as the fall of man, which he con¬
fidently allures us is only an aftronomical legend. 66 All
“ the pretended perfonages mentioned in the Penta-
cc teuch, from Adam to Abraham, or his father Terah,
“ are, it feems, mythological beings ; ftars, conftella-
“ tions, countries. Adam is Bootes ; Noah is Ofiris ,
“ Xithuthrus , Janus, Saturn ; that is to fay, Capricorn,
<e or the celeftial genius that opened the year. Ac-
“ cordingly, when we read, that in the beginning a
ec man and a woman had by their fall brought fin and
(C evil into the world, we are to underftand the celeftial
6C virgin, or conftellation Virgo, and the herdfman Boo -
c< tes, who fetting heliacally at the autumnal equinox,
“ refigned the heavens to the wintry conftellations,
6C and feemed, in finking below the horizon, to intro-

“ duce

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

423

“ duce into tlie world the genius of evil, Ahrimanes ,
“ reprefented by the conftellation of the Serpent. By
ce the woman leducing the man, we have a lively
C( image of the Virgin fetting before Bootes, and ap-
ce pearing to draw him after her,” Sec. Sec. Nothing
but M. Volney’s great celebrity could have induced
me to copy fo far ; I muft contract the remainder as
well as 1 can. “ The fruit, by which man was feduced,
“ is the bunch of fruit, (in fa£t the ear of corn,) which
cc the Virgin holds in her hand. The cherub placed
at the entrance of the garden of Eden is the riling
“ of Perfeus, fword in hand, on the oppofite fide of the
“ heavens, as the Virgin and Bootes fet. The offspring
ee of woman, foretold to crufh the ferpent’s head, See.
“ is the Sun, which, at the period of the fummer fol-
<( ftice, at the precife moment that the Perfian Magi
“ drew the horofeope of the new year, found itfelf in
<( the bofom of the Virgin ; and which, on this ac-
“ count, was reprefented in their aftrological pidtures
“ in the form of an infant fuckled by a chafte virgin ;
“ and afterwards became, at the vernal equinox, the
<c Ram, or Lamb , conqueror of the conftellation of the
ce Serpent, which difappeared from the heavens.” We
have now proceeded far enough to be able to compre¬
hend, if it is really comprehenfible, the curious etymo¬
logical proof M. Volney advances of our Saviour’s hav¬
ing been no other than a fanciful fymbol of the Sun ;
which it feems, among the many aftrological and myl-
terious names beftowed on it, was called fometimes
Chris , or Confervator; and hence the Hindu God Chris -
en , or Chrijlna ; and the Chriftian Chrijlos , the Son of
Mary. For, fays he, the Greeks ufed to exprefs by X,
or Spanifh iota, the afpirated ha of the Orientals, who
faid har'iSj in Hebrew heres , fignifies the Sun ; but in
Arabic the meaning of the radical word is, to guard,
to preferve ; and of haris, guardian and preferver. It
is the proper epithet of Vichenou, which demonjlrates
at once the identity of the Indian and Chriftian Trini¬
ties, and their common origin. It is manifeftly but one
fyftem ; its principal trunk is the Pythagorean fyftem
of the foul of the world, or Jou-Piter. The epithet Piter,
or Father, having been applied to the Demiourgos of
Plato, gave rife to an ambiguity, which caufed an en-

E e 4 quiry

NOTES TO SERMON VIL

quiry to be made refpe6ting the fon of this father : in
the opinions of the philofophers the fon was under*
Handing, Nous or Logds , from which the Latins had
their Verbum. — We may obferve farther, he concludes,
that if Chris comes from Harifch with a Schin, it will
ftgnify artificer , an epithet belonging to the Sun. Thefe
Variations, which muft have embarrafted the ancients,
prove it to be the type of Jefus, as has been already
remarked, in the time of Tertullian : “ Many,” fays
this writer, “ fuppofe, with greater probability, that
ee the Sun is our God, and they refer us to the religion
of the Perfians.” Apologet. c. xvi.

I have already ftated in the Sermon, that Tertullian
mentions not a word of Chriftos being a type of the
Sun. He certainly does hate two caufes for the error
he alludes to, which, it mull be confefled, were plaufi-
ble enough ; namely, that they prayed to the Eaft,
fc denique inde fufpicio, quod innotuerit nos ad orien-
(c tern precari and that the Sunday was a feftival
with them, but which he exprefsly denies to have been
at all conne6ted with the worlhip of the Sun. 6C ^Eque
“ ft Diem Solis lastitise indulgemus, alia longe ratione
quam religione Solis, &c.” For an account of the
cuftom of praying to the Eaft, fee Bingham' s Antiquities,
b. xiii. c. 8. That no idolatry was intended by it we may
be fure ; fee the anfvver particularly directed to be
given to Heathens by the author of the Queftions to
Antiochus, under the name of Athanaftus, Qucejl. 37. —
One of the greateft abominations which the Prophet
Ezekiel is reprefented to have feen, when he was car¬
ried in a vifion to Jerufalem, was the apoftafy of certain
of the Jews, who turning their backs towards the Temple
of God, dire&ed their faces to the Eaft, and worthipped
the Sun ; fee Ezekiel viii. 16. and Vrideaux on the paflage
in the ivth book of the ift Part of his Connection. This
may appear to be a proper reafon for the anlwer above
dire<5ted to be given to the Heathen, if not for the ce¬
remony itfelf : for as the anfwer feems to imply that
there was an obvious necefiity for giving glory to God
as the Creator, and true Light of the world, in oppofi-
tion to thofe who worthipped the created light of the Sun ;
fo the Prophet MalachPs appellation of the Sun of Right-
eoufnefs would feem to be exprefsly oppofed to the vifi-

ble

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

4 25

foie fountain of light. Juftin Martyr (Dial. cu?n Try~
phone, p. 274. edit. Sylburg) particularly draws a com¬
panion between the believers in Chrift, and the idola¬
trous worlhippers of the Sun. Formerly, fays he, God
fuffered men to worlhip the Sun ; but nobody at any time
was known to fuflfer death fooner than renounce their
faith in the Sun : but for the name of Jefus fome of all
nations have been found to fuftain all kinds of fuffer-
ings and punifhments, fooner than be brought to
deny him. Therefore is it that David fays, To ovotxa.
ATTOT sic rov aldvoc map rov vjA iov dvarsXsi. Pf. Ixxii. 17.
Vulg. <i Sit nomen ejus benediCtum in fecula. Ante
c< Solem permanet nomen ejus;” which agrees with
the LXX. St. Cyril of Jerufalem, in his vith Cate¬
chetical Difcourfe, fpeaks of fome who took, not
Chrift for the Sun, as M. Volney would do, but the
Sun for the Chrift ; rov Xpisrov rev rjXiov roorov xaXovnv.
But thefe were of thofe who acknowledged two princi¬
ples, and therefore Cyril fhews their inconfiftency in
allowing the Chrift to be the fon of the good principle,
and yet confounding him with the Sun, a part of this
world, which, according to them, proceeded from the
bad principle. In his xith LeCture he alludes again to
the lame herefy, (pij^ovr^ourav ol Xsyovrsg rov yXiov sivcu toy
Xpirov YjXlov yap In typoiovpycp, ovy 0 rjXiog (paivo^svog.
I wonder M. Volney, in the difpofition he was in to
prove our Saviour to have been no more than the Sun,
fhould fix upon an etymological quibble, which totally
betrays his caufe, when he might certainly have de¬
duced a more plaufible argument from the eircum-
ftances juft alluded to ; which I have brought forward
merely to fhew, that his fufpicions appear to be, in
fome refpecls, no new ones, but that the primitive Fa¬
ther? were amply prepared to combat them.

That the Orientalifts fhould, at the firft introduction
of Chriftianity among them, miftake the origin and
meaning of the term Xpirot, as it is evident the Ro¬
mans did, (fee Ladtantius, lib. iv. 7.) is not to be won¬
dered : and perhaps this may have led to the inter¬
polation of the celebrated poem of the Bhagvat, and
the more eafy introduction of fome parts of the fpurious
Gofpels, as Sir William Jones fufpeCted : fee his Paper
on the Gods of Greece , Italy, and India , in the ift vol. of

425 NOTES TO SERMON VII.

the AJiatic Researches : where, by the bye, he cenfures
the Mijjionaries for having given the Hindus ground to
think that their Trinity was the fame as the Chriftian,
and ably points out the eflential difference both of the
Hindu and of the Platonic Trinities. That fuch interpo¬
lations might be pofiible, we may now the more readily
conclude, from the difcovery that Lord Teignmouth
has given us intimation of, in the Preface to his Life of
Sir William Jones ; namely, that the celebrated and
very curious ftory of Satyavrata (in all refpe6ts fo con¬
formable to the true hiftory of Noah) had be en inter¬
polated into the Purana, which fell into the hands of
Mr. Wilford: an interpolation fo ingenioufly managed,
as toefcape the detedlion as well of Sir William Jones,
as of Mr. Wilford himfelf.

But whatever miftakes may have happened in time
paft, in regard to the derivation and true meaning of
the term Xpi$-oz9 M. Volney can never be excufed as a
modern Critic, for the manner in which he has endea¬
voured to account for the name. As he pretends to be
converlant in the writings of Tertullian, he ought not
to appear to be ignorant, as he does in this inftance, of
the true and orthodox meaning of the term : for in his
treatife again ft Praxeas, fpeaking of the very term, he
fays, “ ft tamen nomen eft Chrijlus , et non appellatio
“ potius; undus enim lignificatur in which he was
extremely right. Chrift is not a name, but a title;
“ Chriftus non proprium nomen eft,” fays La&antius,
“ fed nuncupatio poteftatis, et regni a paffage M.
Volney would do well to examine, becaufe it begins
with noticing the name as well as the title of our
bleft'ed Lord; (e Jefus quippe inter homines nominatur;”
lee his InJHtuL lib. iv. c. 7. It is true, M. Volney does
not quite pafs over the name of Jefus, any more than
the title of Xptror, for he remarks that Chriflos , the fon
of Mary, was at other times called Yes by the union
o three letters, which, according to their numerical
value form the number of 608, one of the/o/^r periods.
And behold, O Europeans,” fays the Orator, “ the
name which with a Latin termination has become
your Yes -us, or Jefus; the ancient cabaliftical name
giyen to young Bacchus, the clandeftine Ion of the
virgin Minerva, who in the whole hiftory of his life,

<f and

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

4 V

(C and even in his death, calls to mind the God of the
“ Chridians ; that is, the Star of the day, of which
(< they are both of them emblems.” It is odd enough,
that when M. Volney was fo bufy to find in the term
Xciro; a Confervator , or preferving power, that is, the
Indian Vichenou, he diould not have made ufe of this
name of Jefus, for this literally is Confervator , upon the
mod cladical authority : it being the very word chofen
by Tacitus for rendering the Greek term Xourrjp, which
every fcholar knows to be the exa£t equivalent of the
Hebrew jntznn\ But M. Volney was aware probably
that this would have overfet his argument; for, as Lac-
tantius obferves, “ Jefus inter homines nominatur,” this
name would have been rather too drong a proof of his
human exiftence; including both his human nature and
his faving power, according to Judin Martyr, who ex-
prefsly obferves, (£ xoei'Av&gunrs, xai ’Lwrryog, ovoy.ct

“ xa) cnj/xaow zyyiV Apol. i. Reddes, had he fixed upon
Jefus, Confervator , to prove the identity of the Chriftian
Logos and the Indian Vichenou, he mud have allowed
that there had been many Vichenou s among the Jews,
for this name of Jefus was in common ufe.

But at lad, to be ferious, as the fubject demands.
Though M. Volney might hold the Gofpels in con¬
tempt, it is no reafon w hy we fhould: and at all events,
when he chofe to criticife the Bible term of Xpirop, he
fliould at lead have allowed the Bible to explain it in
its own way. Now it happens that twice in the Bible
it is mentioned together with its own orthodox interpre¬
tation : in the fird the difciple Andrew informs Simon,
“ E'jgyjxafASv rov Mec rcrlstv, o s$-i gsSs^tyrysvogwov o Xpifog’
<c We have found the Medias, which is, being interpreted ,
the Chriji ” John i. 42. In the fecond, the woman of
Samaria tells our Lord hlmfelf, 0 18a. on Mscnas epx£m
“ rcci, 0 \£yo[Asv<&> Xptros' I know that Medias cometh,
ee who is called ( other wife , or by interpretation in the
(c Greek tongue ; Wells) Chrid.” John iv. 25. Now
M. Volney had no right to pafs over this interpreta¬
tion. If it is not ignorance, it is dratagem, to pretend
that the term Chridos had any other derivation than is
here adigned to it : and as the Hebrew does not
anlvver to one of M. Volney’s abfurd conceits, and the
Greek Xoirof is a literal trandation, (Xpiros yag, dVo ro

x.£yyl<Tj a.i ,

428

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

TiEp/zTo-Qai, as Judin fays, and as n'i^D from the root n&V,)
we can only regard M. Volney’s attempt to fet afide
our Saviour’s human exigence by the means of Criti-
cifm, as a great abufe of time and of talents, and a
fhocking attempt to miflead the unlearned, who always
deferve to be prote&ed from fuch mifchievous defigns.
And the with to do this may, I hope, be admitted
as an excufe for my having dwelt fo long on a fubjedt,
not otherwife deferving of it, and in regard to which
the learned could not want any help.

I cannot however quite difmifs M. VoJney without
one or two more remarks. In a note, p. 135, the reader
is defired to obferve in general, that in the pictures
drawn of the fevcral religions of the earth, the writer
has endeavoured to give as accurately as poffible the
letter and fpirit of the opinions of each party. But I
mud maintain, that, in regard both to Judaifm and
Cbridianity, he has not kept even to the letter, much
lefs to .the fpirit, of the facred books : of which I need
feledt no other indance than the very fird paraphrafe be
gives us. “ In the beginning/’ fays he, “ God (after
“ having palled an eternity without doing any thing)
“ conceived at length the defign (without apparent
“ motive) of forming the world out of nothing : that
<c having in fix days created the whole univerfe, he
“found him felf tired on the feventh. — ” We cannot
wonder after this to find all the vulgar notions revived,
of the whole world being damned for eating an apple,
of the tyranny of God, &c. &c. Indeed M. Volney is
in no indance more accurate than Mr. Paine, in his repre-
fentations of true and genuine Chridianity. M. Volney
acknowledges, that from a view of all the different fyf-
tems of religion, notwithdanding their diffimilitude in
fome points, their refemblance in others was not lefs
driking ; each claiming the fird depofit and the ori¬
ginal difcovery. Does not this imply that there was a
fird depofit ? and if fo, which is likely to be that fird
fydem, the mod corrupt, or the mod pure? M. Volney
thinks the mod corrupt. But in M. Volney’s view of the
progrefs of natural religion, he reduces it to the follow¬
ing heads :

I. Origin of the idea of God: worfhip of the ele¬
ments, and the phyfical powers of Nature.

II. Wor fin ip

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

429

II. Word) ip of the Jlars , or Sabeifm.

III. Worfhip of fymbols , or Idolatry.

IV. W orfhip of two principles , or Dualifm.

V. Myflical or moral worlhip, or the fyflems of a
future (late.

VI. The animated world; or worfhip of the Univerfe
under different emblems.

VII. Worfhip of fire , (the folar fire principally,) as
the foul or vital principle of the Univerfe.

VIII. The world a machine. Worfhip of the De-
miourgos , or fupreme Artificer.

M. Volney refers the whole to Egypt, and pretends
that Mofes drew from thence ; and though he admits,
that he meant to form a feparate religion, to the exclu-
fion of fymbols, yet he finds in his God Jehovah, mm,
or, as it is written in the tranflation I ufe, Yahouh, the
foul of the world , and its fymbols in the fiery buth. Nay,
he finds the very name of Ofiris in the long of Mofes,
Deut. xxxii. to which very chapter of the Bible /
fhould willingly refer the reader in proof of Mofes’s
correct ideas of the God of heaven. But what can we
fay about Ofiris ? “ Thefe,” fays M. Volney, “are the
“ literal expreflions of the book of Deuteronomy,
“ ch. xxxii. The works of Tfour are perfedt. Now
“ Tfour has been tranflated by the word Creator : its
u proper fignifi cation is to give forms, and this is one
“ of the definitions of Ofiris in Plutarch.” Its proper
fignification is, I believe, fo far to give forms, that as
it lignifies a rock, and is as luch, in the fong alluded to,
made an emblem of the Jlability , might, and powerful
protection of God ; fo, as a piece of a rock or {harp done
was often ufed as a knife, it might in that fenl'e give
forms : but I verily fee no other connexion that can
be traced, and am lure that the word, as applied in Deu¬
teronomy, has only the fenfe affigned to it above. See
Parkhurft under nsr. M. Volney has much more on the
term Yahouh, but it is really too trifling to regard. I
{hall conclude with referring to the Hebrew Scriptures
in general, for a proof how carefully and particularly
the feveral errors of natural religion, flated and enu¬
merated by M. Volney, were excluded by the religion
of the Jews ; as the worlhip ot the elements , Jtars , Jym-
bols , idols , the two principles , and the folar _ fire. I

need

43° NOTES TO SERMON VII.

need not point out the paflages ; it requires but little
pains to difcover them.

Page 37 5- note (5)-

All of whom are claimed at leajl by the Unitarians of
the prefent day, as the friends of their party.] That is,
they would make them out to be fuch, if they could ;
for though the differences fubfifting feem to be invin¬
cible, yet their general agreement in detra&ing from
the full divinity of our Saviour, conftantly entitles them
to a manifeft preference, when their opinions are com¬
pared with thofe Trinitarians who are commonly ftyled
Athanafians . This may be plainly feen in Mr. Lindfey’s
Uijlorical View of the Unitarian Dobtrine ; from which I
have taken many of the names mentioned in the Dif-
courfe. And though it is veryunpleafant to have to notice
perfonalities, yet Mr. Lindfey indulges in them with
fuch freedom, and with fuch profeffions of impartiality,
that they certainly deferve to be noticed. He pretends to
lay it down as a canon of Criticifm, that “ we have no
“ grounds or pretenfions whatfoever to afiert, that the
“ religious perfuafions of others, whatever they be, are
“ efpoufed by them upon bad and interefted views, and
“ not owing to fincere convi&ion,” p. 143 ; and yet he
uniformly lpeaks of the Trinitarians as people of
ie narrow prejudices,” fee particularly p. 31 ; of “ weak
ts fuperftition;” as “ idolaters,” p. 3; and as interpret¬
ing Scripture with a “ laboured partiality.” Andfpeak-
mg of Bifhop Newton, he fays, “ amidft thefe extolled
“ popular writers, and learned men in high offices in
“ Church, the generality of Chriftians have little
“ chance for coming at the knowledge of Chrift’s true
te character.” But Socinus and Lrafmus and Dr.
Clarke, &c. & c. though embracing do&rines very re¬
mote from the prefent Unitarian faith, are invariably
learned and worthy, pious and fincere. But to come
to the fubjea of this note. Mr. Lindfey is pofitive
that the Scriptures reprefent our Saviour as having
been “ in all refpedts a human creature ;” that is, that
the mere humanity of Chrift is undoubtedly the doc¬
trine of the New Teftament. Surely then it muft be
matter of reafonable furprife to Trinitarians, that this

ffiould

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

431

fhould feem not to have been at all clear, even to thofe
who have been held to deny his proper divinity. Mr.
Lindfey has noticed thefe errors of his friends in the
work alluded to; and indeed it well became him to en¬
deavour to account for them in fome way or other.
From his own ftatement then, it appears, that Socinus
held, that u befides the one only true God of the He-
tf brew Church, the Chriftian Church acknowledges
i( another true God, namely, the Man Jefus of Nazareth,
u called the Chrift, who in the reigns of Auguftus and
iC Tiberius was firft born, exhibited and made known
(C to the world, and had then the Divine Majejly be-
u flowed upon him, by the Creator of heaven and
“ earth. ” This is Mr. Lindfey’s tranflation of So-
cinus’s own words, which he allows are more extraor¬
dinary in him than in an anonymous writer he cites di¬
rectly afterwards, and whom he alio claims as an Uni¬
tarian ; but who, with Socinus, was an advocate for the
vvorfhip of Chrift, and who went lo far as to propofe
the following as fpecimens of a becoming mediatorial
worftiip of Chrift. “ I worfhip thee, the moft high
(c and independent God.” And again, (which I think
no Trinitarian ever arrived to,) u I bow the knee be-
f( fore thee, the immortal God , who waft jlain , and haft:
i( redeemed me to God by thy blood : to thee be glory
“ for ever.” — u I do not wonder,” fays Mr. Lindfey,
i( that this worthy perfon, who appears convinced that
(C prayer is to be addreffed to Jefus Chrift as a great pre -
“ exijhnt Being , but not the Supreme , fhould neverthe-
(c lets fo frequently ftyle him God ; and lometimes be
te drawn, as in thefe inftances, to fpeak of him in lan-
“ guage that can properly be ufed only of him, who is
cc the only true God.” Now we mull confeis vve are
equally lurprifed at both, (if the mere humanity of
Chrift is the plain and evident doCtrine of Scrip¬
ture,) that Socinus and this anonymous writer, who
are thought to be more than nominal L nitanans^
fhould either have fuppofed from the words of Scrip¬
ture, that Chrift was to be invoked in prayer, or that
he was, in any fenfe of the words, a true God. We are
equally furprifed, if the mere humanity of Chrift is
the plain do&rine of Scripture, that fo learned and

pious a Divine as Dr. Clarke fhould ever have thought
r “ the

43 3

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

“ the fame V erf on , who, according to St. John, in the
ee fulnefs of time was made man, and dwelt among us,
cc did before dwell with God , aCted in the capacity of a
u divine Per [on , as the vifible image of the invifible
(C God , by whom God made all things , and by whom
“ all things were from the beginning tranfacled be-
“ tween God and the creature.” It does not fatisfy
us to be told by Mr. Lindfey, that Dr. Clarke “did not
“ enough confider the obje&ions which lay again ft fu ell
“ an interpretation.”

Ruarus is another perfon claimed by Mr. Lindfey as
an Unitarian, and yet he fcruples not to conclude an
epiftle with Romans ix. 5. “ May the Lord Jefus,

cc who is God over all bleffed for ever, pardon my
(( dulnefs.” I'he Latin of this laft paffage does not
appear ; but of one immediately preceding we have the
Latin in a note, which runs thus : “ Si hoc eft crimen

meuin, feculo contra iviffe, id mihi tecum ipfo commu-
“ ne laetor, et cum omnibus viris probis, cum fandlis
“ Apoftolis, cum ipfo Domino ac Deo meo Jefu Chrifto.”
M. Ruari Epijloltz, vol. ii. p. 86.

Bifliop Hoadley obtains Mr. Lindfey’s praife for his
iorms of prayer, which never conclude with any re-
queft to God for Chrift's fake. But after beftowing
this commendation, he laments, that the Bifhop after¬
wards adopts fome of the prayers of the Liturgy which
end fo, and one particularly which concludes, “through
“ Jefus Chrift our Lord; to whom, with thee, and the
“ Holy Ghoft, be all honour and glory, world without
“ end.”

Much of Mr. Lindfey’s book is taken up with an
account of Mr. Tucker, now well known to be the
author of “ The Light of Nature purfued,” publifhed
under the Mitious name of Search. Mr. Lindfey af-
fures us he was a fincere Chriftian, and a firm believer of
the Divine Unity ; and I fee no reafon to difpute it. If
he was not a believer alfo of the Trinity, I am much
miftaken, if his confent to this doCtrine is to be mea-
fured by the difficulties he found to evade it. Mr.
Lindfey acknowledges he was driven to adopt “ in-
“ genious contrivances and refinements :” and fo I
think any one will believe, when he is told, that, in or¬
der to get rid of the 1 rinity, he conceives the Scrip¬
tures

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

4 33

tures to reprefent God under a triple defer] ption, as
one fupreme Being aCting in three different characters.
Father, Son, and Spirit : he fpeaks alfo of (e the divine
C( operations being performed by three Perfonee (Per-
CC fans) in one God, not jointly, but each having a
6C diftinCl (hare in them.” u The union with man-
hood, and all done in virtue of that union was the
work of the Son : the affiftance afforded occafionally
“ to men in general was the province of the Holy
fc Spirit ; and all the reft of the Father.” There is
much more to the fame effeCt; but I fhall date but one
more expreflion : “ It appears,” fays he, “ that Jefus
was a real man, like unto us in all refpeCls, fin
“ only excepted; and that the Divinity united to him,
“ which together with his human foul and body com-
“ pofed one Chrift, was the fupreme Being fubftan-
“ tially and infeparably prefent with him, fupplying all
“ imperfections in the created parts.” How much is
it to be lamented, fays Mr. Lindfey, that this worthy
and learned man fhould adopt fuch language, when
he only intended to fay, that the Man Chrift Jefus
had extraordinary powers and affiftances from God
above all other men ! We know not what Mr.
Tucker intended to fay : we know what he has faid.
We believe that he was juftly accounted worthy ; and
of his learning we have ample proofs. Can it then be
luppofed, that Mr. Tucker confidered the tenets of
modern . Unitarians to be altogether confiftent with
the plain and evident language of the Scriptures ?
Could he conceive that the doCtrine of the Trinity has
no more foundation in the Scriptures than that of
Tranfubftantiation ? In regard to the atonement he
trifles in a way unbecoming the ferioufnefs of the fub-
jeCt, and not confiftent with his general character.
His objeCt Mr. Lindfey reprefents to have been, to
give to the Trinitarian forms of worfhip in the
eftabli flied Church, an Unitarian meaning. But as
there is no doubt but that he meant to keep within
the terms of the Scripture language, it muft be evi¬
dent how much the latter may be held to fupport or
countenance the Trinitarian interpretation, Unitarians
themfelves being judges. Dr. Prieftley’s xviith ch.
of his ivth book of the Early Opinions concerning'

V f Cbr ijl

434

NOTES TO SERMON VIE

Chrijl may alfo be confulted : bis Pbilofophical Unita¬
rians were certainly much perplexed by the Scriptural
expreflions concerning Chrift. See alfo the Hid Part of
Edwards's Prefervative againjl Socinianifm.

Page 37 6. note (6).

m ecially when, as in the former cafe , our Saviour did
not deny the propriety of the inference they bad drawn.']
Am id ft the multiplicity of texts and paffages, which
have been made the fubjedt of difpute and controveriy,
in regard to the dodfrine of the Trinity, if I was re¬
quired to fix upon thofe, on which the dodtrine might
be moft faid to depend, I fliould certainly feledt this
reprefentation of our Saviour’s condudt with the Jews,
as the moft ftriking, and one which no Socinian Criti-
cifm which has fallen in my way has appeared at all
capable of fetting afide. And I am the more aflured it
is a difficulty they never can get over, from one of the
reafons ftated by the celebrated M. Abauzit, who was
certainly too acute to ufe fuch an argument, but in de¬
fault of all others. He conj edtures, that our Saviour would
probably have explained himfelf more fully, had not
the Jews taken up ftones to caft at him, and by fo do¬
ing obliged our blefled Lord to retire ; “ oblige Jefus
“ Chrijl a fe retirer." Now it is remarkable, that our
Saviour did explain himfelf, notwithftanding the Jews
caft ftones at him, and even “fought to kill him:" and
in fo doing, fo far from (Prinking from the charge of
making himfelf equal with God, or explaining away
his former declarations, he only increafed the fuipicions
of the Jews the more, and aggravated their wrath
again ft him : fee John v. and x. Beftdes, at his trial he
was not perfonally affaulted, or at all molefted, when
he was required to anfwer to the charge of blafphemy
preferred by the High Prieft. He muft have known
that any acknowledgment of his being the Son of God,
in the Jevvifh fenfe of the terms, would fubjeft him to
the penalty of death ; and yet he never denied it. It is
not iurpriftng that the argument to be drawn from this
circumftance of our Lord’s condu6t fhould have been
fo often and fo much iniifted on. The true merits of
the cafe are admirably ftated in Biftiop Burgefs’s Ser¬
mon preached before the Univerfity of Oxford in 1790,

entitled.

NOTES TO SERMON VIT.

entitled, “ The Divinity of Chrijl proved from his own De -
(i clarations , attefed and interpreted by his living IVit-
i( neffes the Jews .” I muft acknowledge, that the argu¬
ments there ufed, had I not been previoufiy allured of it,
would have abundantly fatisfied my mind of the proprie¬
ty of regarding this as the fundamental proof of the doc¬
trine of Oh rift’s Divinity . See aliioLefie’s Socinian Contro -
'vwfjh Dial. III. and Bp. Stilling feet on Scripture My 'ft cries ;
Enchirid. Theolog. vol. ii. 326. See alfo Fuller s Socinian
and Calvinific Syflems compared , Letter III. where it is
exceedingly well argued againft the modern Unita¬
rians, who reprefent the do&rine of the Trinity to be
the main obftacle in the way of the converfion of Jews,
Heathens, and Mahometans, (an old charge often re¬
futed,) that if our Saviour’s Divinity is a ftumbling-
block to modern Jews, they muft greatly differ from
their anceftors ; for they appear to have always attached
the idea of equality to that of fonjhip in refpeH of God :
and the blafphemy of which they accufed our Lord was
not that of any infringement of the divine Unity, or
Polytheifm ; but that he, as Jefus of Nazareth, pre¬
tended to be the Son of God : u For a good work we
“ ftone thee not, but for blafphemy; and becaufe thou,
CC BEING A MAN, MAKEST THYSELF GOD.” John

x. 33*

Pages 78- note (7).

The interpretations I have put upon what are com¬
monly called the damnatory claufes of the Athanafian
Creed, I conceive to be ftri&ly juftifiable from the very
words of the Creed. The firft claufe only ftates the
value and importance of the Catholic Faith, as before all
other things neceflary to falvation. The fecond re-
prefents the extreme danger of abandoning that Faith
when once inftru6led in it, of buffering any fuperfti-
tious additions to be made to it, or in allowing it to
be defiled by any idolatrous abominations. It is only
applicable to Chriftians already in the profeflion of the
Faith, as the expreflions lliew. “ Ante omnia opus eft:

“ ut tenecit Catholicam Fidem.” And again, “ Quam
(( nifi quis integram Jervaverit .” “ Rogo et admoneo

“ vos, fratres carifiimi,” fays Ccefarius, ( Bifbop of Arles
in 503,) “ utquicunque vult falvus efle, Fid zm-reElam et
<( Catholicam difeat , firmiter teneat , invi

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "A view of the evidences of Christianity at the close of the pretended age of reason: in eight sermons preached before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary's, in the year MDCCCV., at the lecture founded by the Rev. John Bampton, M.A., Canon of Salisbury"

See other formats